ISSN 1977-0901

doi:10.3000/19770901.CE2013.354.gre

Επίσημη Εφημερίδα

της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης

C 354E

European flag  

Έκδοση στην ελληνική γλώσσα

Ανακοινώσεις και Πληροφορίες

56ό έτος
4 Δεκεμβρίου 2013


Ανακοίνωση αριθ

Περιεχόμενα

Σελίδα

 

IV   Πληροφορίες

 

ΠΛΗΡΟΦΟΡΙΕΣ ΠΡΟΕΡΧΟΜΕΝΕΣ ΑΠΟ ΤΑ ΘΕΣΜΙΚΑ ΚΑΙ ΛΟΙΠΑ ΟΡΓΑΝΑ ΚΑΙ ΤΟΥΣ ΟΡΓΑΝΙΣΜΟΥΣ ΤΗΣ ΕΥΡΩΠΑΪΚΗΣ ΕΝΩΣΗΣ

 

Ευρωπαϊκό Κοινοβούλιο

 

ΓΡΑΠΤΕΣ ΕΡΩΤΗΣΕΙΣ ΜΕ ΑΠΑΝΤΗΣΗ

2013/C 354E/01

Γραπτές ερωτήσεις των βουλευτών του Ευρωπαϊκού Κοινοβουλίου και απαντήσεις που δόθηκαν από θεσμικό όργανο της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης

1

Σημείωμα προς τον αναγνώστη

Η παρούσα δημοσίευση περιλαμβάνει τις γραπτές ερωτήσεις των βουλευτών του Ευρωπαϊκού Κοινοβουλίου και τις απαντήσεις που δόθηκαν από θεσμικό όργανο της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης.

Για κάθε ερώτηση και απάντηση το κείμενο εμφανίζεται στη γλώσσα του πρωτοτύπου πριν από ενδεχόμενη μετάφρασή του.

Ενδέχεται η απάντηση να έχει δοθεί σε γλώσσα διαφορετική από αυτή της ερώτησης. Αυτό εξαρτάται από τη γλώσσα εργασίας της επιτροπής που καλείται να απαντήσει.

Οι παρούσες ερωτήσεις και απαντήσεις δημοσιεύονται σύμφωνα με τα άρθρα 117 και 118 του Κανονισμού του Ευρωπαϊκού Κοινοβουλίου.

Όλες οι ερωτήσεις και απαντήσεις είναι διαθέσιμες στον ιστότοπο του Ευρωπαϊκού Κοινοβουλίου (Europarl), στο κεφάλαιο Κοινοβουλευτικές ερωτήσεις.

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/plenary/el/parliamentary-questions.html

ΣΗΜΑΣIΑ ΤΩΝ ΧΡΗΣIΜΟΠΟIΟΥΜΕΝΩΝ ΣΥΝΤΜΗΣΕΩΝ ΤΩΝ ΠΟΛIΤIΚΩΝ ΟΜΑΔΩΝ

PPE

Ομάδα τoυ Ευρωπαϊκoύ Λαϊκoύ Κόμματoς (Χριστιανoδημoκράτες)

S&D

Ομάδα της Προοδευτικής Συμμαχίας των Σοσιαλιστών και Δημοκρατών στο Ευρωπαϊκό Κοινοβούλιο

ALDE

Ομάδα Συμμαχία των Δημοκρατών και των Φιλελευθέρων για την Ευρώπη

Verts/ALE

Ομάδα των Πρασίνων/Ευρωπαϊκή Ελεύθερη Συμμαχία

ECR

Ευρωπαίοι Συντηρητικοί και Μεταρρυθμιστές

GUE/NGL

Συνoμoσπoνδιακή Ομάδα της Ευρωπαϊκής Ενωτικής Αριστεράς - Αριστερά των Πρασίνων των Βoρείων Χωρών

EFD

Ευρώπη Ελευθερίας και Δημοκρατίας

NI

Μη εγγεγραμμένοι

EL

 


IV Πληροφορίες

ΠΛΗΡΟΦΟΡΙΕΣ ΠΡΟΕΡΧΟΜΕΝΕΣ ΑΠΟ ΤΑ ΘΕΣΜΙΚΑ ΚΑΙ ΛΟΙΠΑ ΟΡΓΑΝΑ ΚΑΙ ΤΟΥΣ ΟΡΓΑΝΙΣΜΟΥΣ ΤΗΣ ΕΥΡΩΠΑΪΚΗΣ ΕΝΩΣΗΣ

Ευρωπαϊκό Κοινοβούλιο

ΓΡΑΠΤΕΣ ΕΡΩΤΗΣΕΙΣ ΜΕ ΑΠΑΝΤΗΣΗ

4.12.2013   

EL

Επίσημη Εφημερίδα της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης

CE 354/1


http://www.europarl.europa.eu/QP-WEB
ΓΡΑΠΤΕΣ ΕΡΩΤΗΣΕΙΣ ΜΕ ΑΠΑΝΤΗΣΗ

Γραπτές ερωτήσεις των βουλευτών του Ευρωπαϊκού Κοινοβουλίου και απαντήσεις που δόθηκαν από θεσμικό όργανο της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης

(2013/C 354 E/01)

Περιεχόμενα

E-000661/13 by Olga Sehnalová to the Commission

Subject: Changing the VAT rate on nappies

České znění

English version

E-000662/13 by Diogo Feio to the Commission

Subject: VP/HR — Guinea-Bissau: possible postponement of future elections

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-000663/13 by Catherine Bearder to the Commission

Subject: Guarantees for electrical goods

English version

E-000664/13 by Ramon Tremosa i Balcells to the Commission

Subject: Misuse of corporate power by the Spanish state

Versión española

English version

P-000665/13 by Mario Borghezio to the Commission

Subject: Another scandalous case of EU funds being paid to the mafia

Versione italiana

English version

P-000666/13 by Erik Bánki to the Commission

Subject: Member States' best practices in the field of physical education

Magyar változat

English version

E-000667/13 by Georgios Stavrakakis to the Commission

Subject: Estimated payment requests for 2012 per policy area and per fund

Ελληνική έκδοση

English version

E-000668/13 by Georgios Stavrakakis to the Commission

Subject: Estimated payment requests for 2012 by Member State

Ελληνική έκδοση

English version

E-000669/13 by Georgios Stavrakakis to the Commission

Subject: Level of RALs from 2007 until 2012

Ελληνική έκδοση

English version

E-000670/13 by Georgios Stavrakakis to the Commission

Subject: Composition of RALs between 2007 and 2012

Ελληνική έκδοση

English version

E-000671/13 by Georgios Stavrakakis to the Commission

Subject: Estimated RAL projection for the first quarter of 2013

Ελληνική έκδοση

English version

E-000672/13 by Franz Obermayr to the Commission

Subject: VP/HR — Case of Dr Cyril Karabus and human rights in the United Arab Emirates

Deutsche Fassung

English version

E-000673/13 by Zbigniew Ziobro and Tadeusz Cymański to the Commission

Subject: Situation at the Leżajsk Machine Plant

Wersja polska

English version

E-000674/13 by Marek Henryk Migalski to the Commission

Subject: Independent Belarusian journalist under threat of deportation

Wersja polska

English version

E-000676/13 by Franz Obermayr to the Commission

Subject: Authorisation for genetically modified fish

Deutsche Fassung

English version

E-000677/13 by Marina Yannakoudakis to the Commission

Subject: World Economic Forum Annual Meeting in Davos, 22-26 January 2013

English version

E-000678/13 by Laurence J.A.J. Stassen to the Commission

Subject: European Emissions Trading System

Nederlandse versie

English version

E-000679/13 by Laurence J.A.J. Stassen to the Commission

Subject: European climate policy

Nederlandse versie

English version

E-000680/13 by Francesco Enrico Speroni to the Council

Subject: Financial austerity policy and the American approach

Versione italiana

English version

E-000681/13 by Francesco Enrico Speroni to the Commission

Subject: Financial austerity policy and the American approach

Versione italiana

English version

E-000682/13 by Fiorello Provera to the Commission

Subject: VP/HR — Concerns regarding Tunisia's draft constitution

Versione italiana

English version

P-000683/13 by Chris Davies to the Commission

Subject: EU measures to combat terrorism and fight crime

English version

P-000685/13 by Tomasz Piotr Poręba to the Commission

Subject: VP/HR — The issue of Russia returning the wreckage of the presidential TU-154 aircraft

Wersja polska

English version

P-000700/13 by Ryszard Antoni Legutko to the Commission

Subject: VP/HR — The issue of Russia returning the wreckage of the presidential TU-154 aircraft

Wersja polska

English version

E-000686/13 by Lucas Hartong to the Commission

Subject: European Development Fund (EDF) interim report

Nederlandse versie

English version

E-000687/13 by Lucas Hartong to the Commission

Subject: Withholding of payment to Guyana

Nederlandse versie

English version

E-000688/13 by Judith Sargentini to the Commission

Subject: Further questions regarding Dutch fees for residence permits

Nederlandse versie

English version

E-001215/13 by Elisabeth Jeggle to the Commission

Subject: Hungarian legislation on the lease and sale of land

Deutsche Fassung

English version

E-000689/13 by Rareş-Lucian Niculescu to the Commission

Subject: Acquisition of agricultural land by EU citizens

Versiunea în limba română

English version

E-000690/13 by Rareş-Lucian Niculescu to the Commission

Subject: Protein content of wheat

Versiunea în limba română

English version

E-000691/13 by Rareş-Lucian Niculescu to the Commission

Subject: Use of neonicotinoid pesticides in agriculture

Version française

Versiunea în limba română

English version

E-000769/13 by Marc Tarabella to the Commission

Subject: Bee-killing pesticide: the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) report

Version française

English version

E-000692/13 by Rareş-Lucian Niculescu to the Commission

Subject: Tendering process organised in Romania for the European Food Aid Programme for The Most Deprived

Versiunea în limba română

English version

E-000693/13 by Rareş-Lucian Niculescu to the Commission

Subject: Measures to prevent the spread of African Swine Fever

Versiunea în limba română

English version

E-000694/13 by Rareş-Lucian Niculescu to the Commission

Subject: Radioactivity levels of salt imported from Ukraine

Versiunea în limba română

English version

E-000695/13 by Rareş-Lucian Niculescu to the Commission

Subject: Temporary restrictions imposed on the free movement of Romanian workers

Versiunea în limba română

English version

E-000696/13 by Rareş-Lucian Niculescu to the Commission

Subject: Treatment with amoxicillin

Versiunea în limba română

English version

E-000698/13 by Rareş-Lucian Niculescu to the Commission

Subject: Romania's use of EU funds in the second half of 2012

Versiunea în limba română

English version

P-000699/13 by Anna Záborská to the Commission

Subject: Quality of food produced in Poland

Slovenské znenie

English version

E-000701/13 by Franziska Katharina Brantner to the Commission

Subject: Law on strategic investment projects of the Republic of Croatia

Deutsche Fassung

English version

E-000702/13 by Willy Meyer to the Commission

Subject: Lack of transparency in financial bailout decisions

Versión española

English version

E-000703/13 by Chris Davies to the Commission

Subject: Application of the VAT Directive to life-saving organisations

English version

E-000704/13 by Pino Arlacchi to the Commission

Subject: VP/HR — Moroccan Government's democracy claims

Versione italiana

English version

E-000705/13 by Adina-Ioana Vălean to the Commission

Subject: European emergency number 112

Versiunea în limba română

English version

E-000706/13 by Marietta Giannakou to the Commission

Subject: European Intergovernmental Organisations being sidelined in EU research planning

Ελληνική έκδοση

English version

E-000707/13 by Theodoros Skylakakis to the Commission

Subject: European programmes to combat unemployment in Greece

Ελληνική έκδοση

English version

E-000708/13 by Antigoni Papadopoulou to the Commission

Subject: Milk price cap

Ελληνική έκδοση

English version

E-000709/13 by Willy Meyer to the Commission

Subject: VP/HR — Suicide of Aaron Swartz

Versión española

English version

E-000710/13 by Ana Gomes to the Commission

Subject: VP/HR — EU support for peacebuilding projects in Chin State, Burma/Myanmar

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-000711/13 by Jens Rohde to the Commission

Subject: Electric cars

Dansk udgave

English version

E-000712/13 by Jens Rohde to the Commission

Subject: Organic beekeeping in Denmark

Dansk udgave

English version

E-000713/13 by Roberta Angelilli to the Commission

Subject: Assessment of joint custody at European level

Versione italiana

English version

E-000714/13 by Christel Schaldemose to the Commission

Subject: Requirements for mobile antennae and telephone networks

Dansk udgave

English version

E-000715/13 by Raül Romeva i Rueda to the Commission

Subject: Possible money laundering in Spain in connection with the ‘Eurovegas’ project

Versión española

English version

E-000716/13 by Raül Romeva i Rueda to the Commission

Subject: Right to information in Spain in respect of the Eurovegas project

Versión española

English version

E-000717/13 by Monika Smolková to the Commission

Subject: Europe for Citizens, Measure 1.2 — Networks of Twinned Towns

Slovenské znenie

English version

E-000719/13 by Mario Borghezio to the Commission

Subject: Commission support for technical innovation in the automotive industry

Versione italiana

English version

E-000720/13 by Mario Borghezio to the Commission

Subject: The Commission should monitor American hedge funds in the EU

Versione italiana

English version

E-000721/13 by Mario Borghezio to the Commission

Subject: Call for the Commission to review its parameters on pesticides

Versione italiana

English version

E-000722/13 by Willy Meyer to the Commission

Subject: VP/HR — Attack in Araucanía and militarisation of the region

Versión española

English version

E-000723/13 by Willy Meyer to the Commission

Subject: VP/HR — Military action by France in Mali

Versión española

English version

E-000724/13 by Willy Meyer to the Commission

Subject: Discrimination against women in Spanish pension legislation

Versión española

English version

E-000725/13 by Willy Meyer to the Commission

Subject: Mortality due to privatisations in Eastern Europe

Versión española

English version

E-000726/13 by Willy Meyer to the Commission

Subject: Implementing free software in the European institutions

Versión española

English version

E-000727/13 by Ria Oomen-Ruijten and Ivo Belet to the Commission

Subject: Expiry of the right to an accrued Dutch State Pension

Nederlandse versie

English version

E-000730/13 by Ramon Tremosa i Balcells to the Commission

Subject: Artificial guts made of hardened protein

Versión española

English version

E-000732/13 by Ramon Tremosa i Balcells to the Commission

Subject: Artificial guts made from hardened protein II

Versión española

English version

E-000733/13 by Zbigniew Ziobro, Jacek Włosowicz, Jacek Olgierd Kurski and Tadeusz Cymański to the Commission

Subject: Poland's traffic enforcement camera system

Wersja polska

English version

E-000734/13 by Charles Tannock to the Commission

Subject: VP/HR — The case of the Egyptian Coptic woman Nadia Mohamed Ali and her children

English version

E-000735/13 by Raül Romeva i Rueda to the Commission

Subject: Repercussions on spaces included within the Natura 2000 network of a project involving a very high voltage power line

Versión española

English version

E-000737/13 by João Ferreira and Inês Cristina Zuber to the Commission

Subject: Using statistical data to negotiate and allocate the Structural Funds

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-000738/13 by João Ferreira and Inês Cristina Zuber to the Commission

Subject: 2014 — International Year of Family Farming

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-000739/13 by João Ferreira and Inês Cristina Zuber to the Council

Subject: Portuguese flag at the Eurogroup meeting

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-000740/13 by João Ferreira and Inês Cristina Zuber to the Commission

Subject: Protecting and valuing Arte Xávega

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-000741/13 by João Ferreira and Inês Cristina Zuber to the Commission

Subject: Implementation of the Structural Funds by countries receiving EU-IMF bailouts

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-000742/13 by João Ferreira and Inês Cristina Zuber to the Commission

Subject: Reprogramming of the European Fisheries Fund — Portugal

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-000743/13 by João Ferreira and Inês Cristina Zuber to the Commission

Subject: Restrictions on the import and private ownership of endangered species

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-000744/13 by João Ferreira to the Commission

Subject: Investment in infrastructure to support small-scale fishing (Setúbal, Portugal)

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-000745/13 by João Ferreira to the Commission

Subject: Skate and ray fishing in Portugal (II)

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-000746/13 by João Ferreira to the Commission

Subject: Damage to fishing caused by the spread of algae (Setúbal, Portugal)

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-000747/13 by Willy Meyer to the Commission

Subject: Closure of public health night services in Castilla-La Mancha

Versión española

English version

E-000748/13 by Angelika Werthmann to the Commission

Subject: The Commission's position on water privatisation

Deutsche Fassung

English version

E-000749/13 by Angelika Werthmann to the Commission

Subject: Crisis countries should privatise their water supplies and water industries

Deutsche Fassung

English version

E-000750/13 by Angelika Werthmann to the Commission

Subject: Margo Jewish Cemetery in the Turkish occupied part of Cyprus

Deutsche Fassung

English version

E-000752/13 by Nessa Childers to the Commission

Subject: Transparency register

English version

E-000753/13 by Mojca Kleva Kekuš to the Commission

Subject: Rise in abortion of female foetuses in Europe

Slovenska različica

English version

E-000754/13 by Saïd El Khadraoui to the Commission

Subject: Problems with the Fyra service on the Belgian and Dutch railways

Nederlandse versie

English version

E-000755/13 by Giommaria Uggias, Andrea Zanoni, Lara Comi, Antonio Cancian, Ramon Tremosa i Balcells, Pino Arlacchi, Roberta Angelilli, Ivo Vajgl and Marian Harkin to the Commission

Subject: Proposal for an international cooperation agreement with southern hemisphere countries to exchange fire-fighting resources

Versión española

Versione italiana

Slovenska različica

English version

E-000756/13 by Michael Cramer and Eva Lichtenberger to the Commission

Subject: ÖBB debts and the Austrian federal budget

Deutsche Fassung

English version

E-000757/13 by Raül Romeva i Rueda to the Commission

Subject: Fracking in La Garrotxa

Versión española

English version

E-000758/13 by Crescenzio Rivellini to the Commission

Subject: Free movement of professionals and recognition of the legal profession in the Member States

Versione italiana

English version

E-000759/13 by Bernd Lange to the Commission

Subject: Review of Regulation (EU) No 1025/2012 on European standardisation

Deutsche Fassung

English version

E-000760/13 by Vilija Blinkevičiūtė to the Council

Subject: Negotiations on the progress of the Posting of Workers Directive

Tekstas lietuvių kalba

English version

E-000761/13 by Vilija Blinkevičiūtė to the Council

Subject: Pensions portability directive

Tekstas lietuvių kalba

English version

E-000762/13 by Vilija Blinkevičiūtė to the Council

Subject: Future of the Working Time Directive

Tekstas lietuvių kalba

English version

E-000763/13 by Fiona Hall to the Commission

Subject: Children in Senegal subjected to begging and abuse

English version

E-000764/13 by Raimon Obiols to the Commission

Subject: VP/HR — Health system in Afghanistan

Versión española

English version

E-000765/13 by Michael Cramer to the Commission

Subject: Staff of the European Railway Agency (ERA)

Deutsche Fassung

English version

E-000770/13 by Marc Tarabella to the Commission

Subject: Ineffective drugs and excessive consumption of medicinal products

Version française

English version

E-000772/13 by Judith Sargentini, Sandrine Bélier and Bart Staes to the Commission

Subject: Net neutrality and Commissioner Kroes' statements in ‘Libération’

Version française

Nederlandse versie

English version

E-000773/13 by Laurence J.A.J. Stassen to the Commission

Subject: EU control of national media

Nederlandse versie

English version

E-000774/13 by Willy Meyer to the Commission

Subject: Outcome of the Spanish tax amnesty

Versión española

English version

E-000776/13 by Sir Graham Watson to the Commission

Subject: VP/HR — Freedom of religion in China: the case of Bishop James Su Zhimin (Su Zhemin)

English version

E-000777/13 by Niki Tzavela to the Commission

Subject: The Troika's recipe for disaster

Ελληνική έκδοση

English version

E-000778/13 by Oreste Rossi to the Commission

Subject: Electric cars: what safeguards and safety procedures in the event of an accident?

Versione italiana

English version

E-000779/13 by Oreste Rossi to the Commission

Subject: Hospitalised paediatric patients: responding to the needs and difficulties of parents

Versione italiana

English version

E-000780/13 by Oreste Rossi to the Commission

Subject: Organ donations and transplants: best practices in Europe

Versione italiana

English version

E-000781/13 by Oreste Rossi to the Commission

Subject: ECJ ‘Traghetti del Mediterraneo’ judgment: what prospects for recognition of liability for infringements attributable to the legislator?

Versione italiana

English version

E-000782/13 by Oreste Rossi to the Commission

Subject: Anti-discrimination legislation as an EU access requirement: what solutions for ethnic and religious minorities?

Versione italiana

English version

E-000783/13 by Oreste Rossi to the Commission

Subject: Airports and energy-saving measures

Versione italiana

English version

E-000784/13 by Raül Romeva i Rueda to the Council

Subject: Youth unemployment in Spain in 2012

Versión española

English version

E-000785/13 by Raül Romeva i Rueda to the Council

Subject: Unemployment in Spain

Versión española

English version

E-000786/13 by Nuno Teixeira to the Commission

Subject: Support for the creation of clusters

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-000787/13 by Nuno Teixeira to the Commission

Subject: Support for the expansion of European enterprises

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-000788/13 by Nuno Teixeira to the Commission

Subject: Young entrepreneurs and the success of the Erasmus first job programme

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-000789/13 by Nuno Teixeira to the Commission

Subject: Lack of competitiveness of European enterprises

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-000790/13 by Nuno Teixeira to the Commission

Subject: European venture capital funds

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-000791/13 by Nuno Teixeira to the Commission

Subject: Internationalisation of European enterprises

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-000792/13 by Nuno Teixeira to the Commission

Subject: European promotion of tourism

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-000793/13 by Nuno Teixeira to the Commission

Subject: Promoting a culture of entrepreneurship

Versão portuguesa

English version

P-000794/13 by Angelika Werthmann to the Commission

Subject: Hague Convention on Child Abduction (HCCA) and possible misinterpretation by the Member States

Deutsche Fassung

English version

E-000795/13 by Diogo Feio to the Commission

Subject: Sixth EU-Brazil Summit Joint Statement — trade and investment

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-000796/13 by Diogo Feio to the Commission

Subject: Sixth EU-Brazil Summit Joint Statement — culture

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-000797/13 by Diogo Feio to the Commission

Subject: VI Brazil-EU Summit Joint Statement — bilateral political dialogue

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-000798/13 by Diogo Feio to the Commission

Subject: Sixth EU-Brazil Summit Joint Statement — education

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-000799/13 by Diogo Feio to the Commission

Subject: VI Brazil-EU Summit Joint Statement — Energy

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-000800/13 by Diogo Feio to the Commission

Subject: VI Brazil-EU Summit Joint Statement — civil society

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-000801/13 by Diogo Feio to the Commission

Subject: Dissemination and study of the great books of European culture

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-000802/13 by Diogo Feio to the Commission

Subject: VP/HR — Tension between China and Japan: Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-000803/13 by Diogo Feio to the Commission

Subject: False advertising regarding the effects of cosmetics

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-000804/13 by Diogo Feio to the Commission

Subject: European Maritime Day — promotion and visibility

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-000805/13 by Diogo Feio to the Commission

Subject: Possible cuts in the EU budget for culture

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-000806/13 by Diogo Feio to the Commission

Subject: VP/HR — Security in Benghazi

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-000807/13 by Diogo Feio to the Commission

Subject: Arab Spring: state of play

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-000808/13 by Diogo Feio to the Commission

Subject: Equality — Denmark

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-000809/13 by Diogo Feio to the Commission

Subject: Equality — toys in Sweden

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-000810/13 by Diogo Feio to the Commission

Subject: Ryanair

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-000811/13 by Diogo Feio to the Commission

Subject: Lisbon Declaration — EU-Africa Summit 2007

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-000812/13 by Diogo Feio to the Commission

Subject: Active European Remembrance against totalitarianism

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-000813/13 by Diogo Feio to the Commission

Subject: European day of Remembrance for Victims of Stalinism and Nazism

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-000814/13 by Diogo Feio to the Commission

Subject: Speech by David Cameron

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-000815/13 by Diogo Feio to the Commission

Subject: VP/HR — Security of European overseas investments

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-000816/13 by Diogo Feio to the Commission

Subject: Obesity

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-000817/13 by Jim Higgins to the Commission

Subject: Novel tobacco products

English version

E-000818/13 by Jim Higgins to the Commission

Subject: Tourism as a means of economic growth

English version

E-000819/13 by Jim Higgins to the Commission

Subject: The survival, promotion and future of the arts in Europe

English version

E-000820/13 by Jim Higgins to the Commission

Subject: Cystic fibrosis research

English version

E-000821/13 by Rareş-Lucian Niculescu to the Commission

Subject: Bans on imports into Russia

Versiunea în limba română

English version

E-000822/13 by Vasilica Viorica Dăncilă to the Commission

Subject: Holiday camps

Versiunea în limba română

English version

E-000823/13 by Bernd Lange to the Commission

Subject: European standardisation of tourism services through Regulation (EU) No 1025/2012

Deutsche Fassung

English version

E-000824/13 by Raül Romeva i Rueda to the Council

Subject: Effects of austerity policies on health

Versión española

English version

E-000825/13 by Raül Romeva i Rueda to the Commission

Subject: Effects of austerity policies on health

Versión española

English version

E-000826/13 by Marian Harkin to the Commission

Subject: Income tax on employed and self-employed persons in Ireland

English version

E-000827/13 by Franziska Keller to the Council

Subject: EU's position on extension of WTO TRIPS Agreement transition period for Least Developed Countries

Deutsche Fassung

English version

E-000828/13 by Franziska Keller to the Commission

Subject: EU's position on extension of WTO TRIPS Agreement transition period for Least Developed Countries

Deutsche Fassung

English version

E-000829/13 by Catherine Stihler to the Commission

Subject: Insolvency and consumer protection

English version

E-000830/13 by Diogo Feio to the Commission

Subject: Fever-reducing drugs and liver damage

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-000831/13 by Diogo Feio to the Commission

Subject: Statements by Commissioner László Andor on employment

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-000872/13 by Mario Borghezio to the Commission

Subject: Two posts and two salaries — one from the EU and the other from the Italian Prime Minister's Office

Versione italiana

English version

E-000832/13 by Lucas Hartong to the Commission

Subject: National ‘experts’ on the Commission's payroll

Nederlandse versie

English version

E-000915/13 by Daniël van der Stoep to the Commission

Subject: Mr Monti's spokeswoman

Nederlandse versie

English version

E-000833/13 by Jim Higgins to the Commission

Subject: Environmental impact of tourism

English version

E-000836/13 by Nikos Chrysogelos to the Commission

Subject: Risk of closure of Athens and Thessaloniki Centres for Education and Rehabilitation for the Blind

Ελληνική έκδοση

English version

E-000839/13 by Anna Rosbach to the Commission

Subject: Prescription-free antibiotics

Dansk udgave

English version

E-000840/13 by Anna Rosbach to the Commission

Subject: Parallel imports of pharmaceuticals

Dansk udgave

English version

E-000841/13 by Ramon Tremosa i Balcells to the Commission

Subject: Major reduction in the funding of science in Spain

Versión española

English version

E-000845/13 by Alyn Smith to the Commission

Subject: ‘Enough Food For Everyone If’ campaign

English version

E-000846/13 by Charles Tannock to the Commission

Subject: Potential for a serious negative impact on medical and scientific research of the Data Protection Regulation

English version

E-000847/13 by Inês Cristina Zuber and João Ferreira to the Council

Subject: End to the ‘Common Position’ on Cuba

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-000848/13 by Marc Tarabella to the Commission

Subject: Graph Search and intrusions into private life

Version française

English version

E-000849/13 by Marc Tarabella to the Commission

Subject: Data protection: Sony must be the subject of an investigation

Version française

English version

E-000850/13 by Marc Tarabella to the Commission

Subject: Facebook searches through personal messages

Version française

English version

E-000851/13 by Georgios Papanikolaou to the Commission

Subject: The smog problem in Greece

Ελληνική έκδοση

English version

E-000852/13 by Georgios Papanikolaou to the Commission

Subject: Health in sport/promoting information, prevention and examination in training and education establishments

Ελληνική έκδοση

English version

E-000853/13 by Georgios Papanikolaou to the Commission

Subject: Extent of firearm possession in the EU

Ελληνική έκδοση

English version

E-000854/13 by Georgios Papanikolaou to the Commission

Subject: Humanitarian crisis in Mali: wave of refugees

Ελληνική έκδοση

English version

E-000855/13 by Georgios Papanikolaou to the Commission

Subject: Additional information on Task Force for Greece expenses

Ελληνική έκδοση

English version

E-000856/13 by Georgios Papanikolaou to the Commission

Subject: Hidden charges for mobile applications

Ελληνική έκδοση

English version

E-000857/13 by Georgios Papanikolaou to the Commission

Subject: Capital flight

Ελληνική έκδοση

English version

E-000858/13 by Diogo Feio to the Commission

Subject: Aquaculture

Versão portuguesa

English version

P-000859/13 by Britta Thomsen to the Commission

Subject: Ageing and women's health

Dansk udgave

English version

E-000860/13 by Nuno Teixeira to the Commission

Subject: Obstacles to obtaining residence visas for European citizens in Brazil

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-000861/13 by Ana Miranda to the Commission

Subject: Planned rail link to the outer harbour of Ferrol (Coruña)

Versión española

English version

P-000862/13 by Diane Dodds to the Commission

Subject: VP/HR — Persecution of Christians in Iran

English version

P-000863/13 by Bogdan Kazimierz Marcinkiewicz to the Commission

Subject: Legality of using unmanned aerial vehicles under EC law

Wersja polska

English version

E-000864/13 by Ana Miranda to the Commission

Subject: Ensure the reopening of the Canfranc-Pau international railway line in 2020

Versión española

English version

E-000865/13 by Nikolaos Chountis to the Commission

Subject: Penalty clauses for E65 motorway

Ελληνική έκδοση

English version

E-000866/13 by Nikolaos Chountis to the Commission

Subject: Co-financed major works and bridge works in Greece

Ελληνική έκδοση

English version

E-000867/13 by Vasilica Viorica Dăncilă to the Commission

Subject: Rural development — involvement of local communities

Versiunea în limba română

English version

E-000868/13 by Jim Higgins to the Commission

Subject: Cross-border energy trade

English version

E-000869/13 by Nikos Chrysogelos to the Commission

Subject: Destruction of nature area in Commune of Livera-Kormakiti in Cyprus

Ελληνική έκδοση

English version

E-000878/13 by Sophocles Sophocleous to the Commission

Subject: Environmental destruction in the community of Livera

Ελληνική έκδοση

English version

E-000870/13 by Othmar Karas, Andrey Kovatchev and Patrizia Toia to the Commission

Subject: Socially fair development of Renewable Energy Policy in the internal energy market

българска версия

Deutsche Fassung

Versione italiana

English version

P-000871/13 by Corien Wortmann-Kool to the Commission

Subject: European budgetary rules and the establishment of national budgetary mechanisms in the Member States

Nederlandse versie

English version

E-000875/13 by Anne Delvaux to the Commission

Subject: Impact of neonicotinoids on bee health

Version française

English version

E-000934/13 by Christine De Veyrac to the Commission

Subject: Pesticides and bees in Europe

Version française

English version

E-001281/13 by Elżbieta Katarzyna Łukacijewska to the Commission

Subject: The effects of pesticide use on the bee population

Wersja polska

English version

E-000877/13 by Diane Dodds to the Commission

Subject: Rwandan aid programmes

English version

E-000879/13 by Aldo Patriciello to the Commission

Subject: Lending to private individuals

Versione italiana

English version

E-000880/13 by Aldo Patriciello to the Commission

Subject: Microcredit

Versione italiana

English version

E-000882/13 by Inês Cristina Zuber to the Commission

Subject: Concerns regarding the Barbosa e Almeida Vidro Company

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-000883/13 by Slavi Binev to the Commission

Subject: Dangerous waste dumps in Bulgaria in breach of EC law

българска версия

English version

E-000884/13 by Willy Meyer to the Commission

Subject: IMF error regarding the effects of austerity in Europe

Versión española

English version

E-000885/13 by Michael Cashman to the Commission

Subject: Investigation of the UK School Standards and Framework Act (SSFA) legislation

English version

E-000886/13 by Jens Rohde to the Commission

Subject: Provisions concerning the qualitative status of water courses in the Water Framework Directive

Dansk udgave

English version

E-000887/13 by Jim Higgins to the Commission

Subject: Implementation of the EU Transparency Directive and Accounting Directive

English version

E-000888/13 by Marc Tarabella to the Commission

Subject: The EU's strategy for the Horn of Africa

Version française

English version

E-000889/13 by Marc Tarabella to the Commission

Subject: Introduction of stability bonds

Version française

English version

E-000890/13 by Marc Tarabella to the Commission

Subject: Intellectual property rights to genetic resources and biopiracy

Version française

English version

E-000891/13 by Marc Tarabella to the Commission

Subject: Information and consultation for workers in the event of restructuring

Version française

English version

E-000892/13 by Marc Tarabella to the Commission

Subject: Diane 35: off-label use

Version française

English version

E-000893/13 by Diane Dodds to the Commission

Subject: VP/HR — Plight of Christians in Nigeria

English version

E-000894/13 by Ryszard Antoni Legutko to the Commission

Subject: Promotion of public transport in Poland

Wersja polska

English version

E-000895/13 by Zbigniew Ziobro to the Commission

Subject: VP/HR — Persecution of Christians in Egypt

Wersja polska

English version

E-000896/13 by Zbigniew Ziobro and Jacek Olgierd Kurski to the Commission

Subject: The TV Belsat situation

Wersja polska

English version

E-000897/13 by Phil Prendergast to the Commission

Subject: Data protection and Facebook's ‘graph search’

English version

E-000899/13 by Diogo Feio to the Commission

Subject: United Kingdom immigration

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-000900/13 by Diogo Feio to the Commission

Subject: Russian taxes

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-000901/13 by Amelia Andersdotter to the Commission

Subject: Status of accredited assistants at the European Parliament

Svensk version

English version

E-000902/13 by Inês Cristina Zuber to the Commission

Subject: European Data Protection Day

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-000903/13 by Ashley Fox to the Commission

Subject: Welsh Government's proposal to purchase Cardiff Airport

English version

E-000904/13 by Willy Meyer to the Commission

Subject: Son Reus incineration plant on the island of Majorca (Spain)

Versión española

English version

E-000905/13 by Marc Tarabella to the Commission

Subject: Role of territorial development in cohesion policy

Version française

English version

P-000906/13 by William (The Earl of) Dartmouth to the Commission

Subject: Bulgarian and Romanian citizens entering the UK

English version

E-000907/13 by Antigoni Papadopoulou to the Commission

Subject: Benefits enjoyed by Turkish Cypriots

Ελληνική έκδοση

English version

E-000908/13 by Antigoni Papadopoulou to the Commission

Subject: Cypriot banks and systemic risks in the eurozone

Ελληνική έκδοση

English version

E-000909/13 by Antigoni Papadopoulou to the Commission

Subject: Erosion of welfare state

Ελληνική έκδοση

English version

E-000910/13 by Antigoni Papadopoulou to the Commission

Subject: Annexation plan

Ελληνική έκδοση

English version

E-000911/13 by Antigoni Papadopoulou to the Commission

Subject: Alarming rise in Euroscepticism

Ελληνική έκδοση

English version

E-000912/13 by Antigoni Papadopoulou to the Commission

Subject: Youth guarantee schemes

Ελληνική έκδοση

English version

E-000913/13 by Sophia in 't Veld and Rui Tavares to the Commission

Subject: Abrogation or review of ‘liquids and body scanners’ rules

Nederlandse versie

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-000914/13 by William (The Earl of) Dartmouth to the Commission

Subject: Roma and benefits in the UK

English version

P-000916/13 by Nils Torvalds to the Commission

Subject: Production aid for electricity from renewable energy sources on the Åland Islands, Finland

Svensk version

English version

P-000917/13 by Nuno Teixeira to the Commission

Subject: New credit lines from the European Investment Bank

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-000918/13 by Nikolaos Salavrakos to the Commission

Subject: Contempt for court judgments in Greece

Ελληνική έκδοση

English version

E-000919/13 by Theodoros Skylakakis to the Commission

Subject: Privatisation of OPAP (Greek Organisation of Football Prognostics) and its expansion into video lottery terminals (VLTs)

Ελληνική έκδοση

English version

E-000939/13 by Theodoros Skylakakis to the Commission

Subject: Court of Justice judgment and privatisation of OPAP (Greek Organisation of Football Prognostics Ltd.)

Ελληνική έκδοση

English version

E-000920/13 by Mario Borghezio to the Commission

Subject: VP/HR — Destruction of Timbuktu library: EU intervention

Versione italiana

English version

E-001232/13 by Esther de Lange to the Commission

Subject: Use of the Diane-35 pill in Europe

Nederlandse versie

English version

E-001000/13 by Diogo Feio to the Commission

Subject: Deaths linked to contraceptive pill

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-001339/13 by Nuno Melo to the Commission

Subject: France suspends Diane 35

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-000921/13 by Rareş-Lucian Niculescu to the Commission

Subject: Side effects of contraceptive pills

Versiunea în limba română

English version

E-000922/13 by Jorgo Chatzimarkakis to the Commission

Subject: Miscalculation regarding austerity measures (‘fiscal consolidation’) for Greece

Deutsche Fassung

English version

E-000923/13 by Nuno Teixeira to the Commission

Subject: Recent capital increase for the European Investment Bank

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-000924/13 by Nuno Teixeira to the Commission

Subject: Portugal's return to the markets — I

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-000925/13 by Nuno Teixeira to the Commission

Subject: Portugal's return to the markets II

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-000926/13 by Nuno Teixeira to the Commission

Subject: European Union-Republic of South Africa relations

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-000927/13 by Nuno Teixeira to the Commission

Subject: International Business Centre of Madeira: Madeira Free Zone

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-000928/13 by Jim Higgins to the Commission

Subject: Mobile phone scam in Ireland

English version

E-000929/13 by Jim Higgins to the Commission

Subject: Suicide rates among young people

English version

E-000930/13 by Filip Kaczmarek to the Commission

Subject: Procedures for potentially contaminated milk powder

Wersja polska

English version

E-000931/13 by Claudiu Ciprian Tănăsescu to the Commission

Subject: Hazardous chemicals in clothing

Versiunea în limba română

English version

E-000932/13 by Claudiu Ciprian Tănăsescu to the Commission

Subject: Toxic waste in Ukraine

Versiunea în limba română

English version

E-000933/13 by Christine De Veyrac to the Commission

Subject: Aviation carbon tax — windfall profits for certain airlines

Version française

English version

E-000935/13 by Derek Roland Clark to the Commission

Subject: Road bridge design

English version

E-000936/13 by Izaskun Bilbao Barandica to the Commission

Subject: Situation of language teachers in Italian universities

Versión española

English version

E-000937/13 by Kerstin Westphal to the Commission

Subject: Improved under-run protective device for lorries

Deutsche Fassung

English version

E-000938/13 by Theodoros Skylakakis to the Commission

Subject: Connection between the ports of Burgas and Alexandroupolis and linking the latter to the road and rail network

Ελληνική έκδοση

English version

E-000940/13 by Cristiana Muscardini to the Commission

Subject: Safety standards for nightclubs

Versione italiana

English version

E-000941/13 by Cristiana Muscardini to the Commission

Subject: Taxing meat

Versione italiana

English version

E-001558/13 by Mara Bizzotto to the Commission

Subject: Swedish proposal for an EU tax on meat — a threat to livestock farming in Italy and the Veneto Region

Versione italiana

English version

E-000942/13 by Willy Meyer to the Commission

Subject: Estimation of the sums of money involved in the alleged rigging of Libor and Euribor rates

Versión española

English version

E-000943/13 by Pavel Poc to the Commission

Subject: Limiting financial losses resulting from leakages of drinking water through public water mains

České znění

English version

E-000944/13 by Anne Delvaux to the Commission

Subject: EU steel industry

Version française

English version

E-000945/13 by Werner Langen to the Council

Subject: Vice-President of Eurojust

Deutsche Fassung

English version

E-000946/13 by Werner Langen to the Commission

Subject: Vice-President of Eurojust

Deutsche Fassung

English version

P-000947/13 by Andres Perello Rodriguez to the Commission

Subject: Approval of restructuring and capitalisation plans of Spanish banking groups and information for holders of preference shares

Versión española

English version

E-000948/13 by Gay Mitchell to the Commission

Subject: Proposal for a regulation on periodic roadworthiness tests for motor vehicles and their trailers and repealing Directive 2009/40/EC

English version

E-000950/13 by Roberta Angelilli to the Commission

Subject: Monte Paschi scandal: failure to calculate the cost of derivatives deals

Versione italiana

English version

E-000952/13 by Britta Reimers to the Commission

Subject: LIFE + project LIFE09 NAT/DE/000010 ‘Aurinia’

Deutsche Fassung

English version

E-000953/13 by Amelia Andersdotter to the Commission

Subject: Determination of intellectual property right status

Svensk version

English version

E-000954/13 by Amelia Andersdotter to the Commission

Subject: Criteria for including trademark rights in list of intellectual property rights

Svensk version

English version

E-001068/13 by Amelia Andersdotter to the Commission

Subject: Criteria for including rights related to copyright in list of IPRs

Svensk version

English version

E-001091/13 by Amelia Andersdotter to the Commission

Subject: Criteria for including sui generis rights of database makers in list of intellectual property rights

Svensk version

English version

E-001176/13 by Amelia Andersdotter to the Commission

Subject: Criteria for including the rights of the creator of the topographies of a semiconductor product in list of IPRs

Svensk version

English version

E-001199/13 by Amelia Andersdotter to the Commission

Subject: Criteria for including trademark rights in list of IPRs

Svensk version

English version

E-001235/13 by Amelia Andersdotter to the Commission

Subject: Criteria for including design rights in list of IPRs

Svensk version

English version

E-001321/13 by Amelia Andersdotter to the Commission

Subject: Criteria for including patent rights, including rights derived from supplementary protection certificates, in list of IPRs

Svensk version

English version

E-001378/13 by Amelia Andersdotter to the Commission

Subject: Criteria for including geographical indications in list of IPRs

Svensk version

English version

E-001409/13 by Amelia Andersdotter to the Commission

Subject: Criteria for including utility model rights in list of intellectual property rights

Svensk version

English version

E-001544/13 by Amelia Andersdotter to the Commission

Subject: Criteria for including trade names, in so far as these are protected as exclusive property rights in the national law concerned, in lists of intellectual property rights (IPRs)

Svensk version

English version

E-001610/13 by Amelia Andersdotter to the Commission

Subject: Criteria for including plant variety rights in lists of intellectual property rights (IPRs)

Svensk version

English version

E-001653/13 by Amelia Andersdotter to the Commission

Subject: Criteria for including copyright in lists of intellectual property rights (IPRs)

Svensk version

English version

E-000955/13 by Carlos Coelho and José Manuel Fernandes to the Commission

Subject: Road safety

Versão portuguesa

English version

P-001257/13 by Marc Tarabella to the Commission

Subject: IP tracking, a practice which is contrary to consumers' interests

Version française

English version

E-000956/13 by Claudio Morganti to the Commission

Subject: Problems relating to ‘IP tracking’

Versione italiana

English version

E-001574/13 by Cristiana Muscardini to the Commission

Subject: IP tracking

Versione italiana

English version

E-000957/13 by Ian Hudghton to the Commission

Subject: Selective negotiating efforts for qualifying industrial zones in Ukraine

English version

E-000958/13 by Ian Hudghton to the Commission

Subject: Review of current arrangements with Iran in light of humanitarian concerns

English version

E-000959/13 by Ian Hudghton to the Commission

Subject: Pan-EU rail market and steps to encourage stakeholders to embrace potential changes

English version

E-000960/13 by Ian Hudghton to the Commission

Subject: Improving the state of groundwater bodies across Europe

English version

E-000961/13 by Ian Hudghton to the Commission

Subject: Promotion and expansion of European Heritage Days

English version

E-000962/13 by Ian Hudghton to the Commission

Subject: EU funding in Serbia

English version

E-000976/13 by Marielle de Sarnez to the Commission

Subject: US Government ban on US aircraft operators participating in the EU Emissions Trading System (EU ETS)

Version française

English version

E-000963/13 by Ian Hudghton to the Commission

Subject: EU emissions trading scheme and the USA

English version

E-000964/13 by Ian Hudghton to the Commission

Subject: EU efforts to address global match-fixing

English version

E-000965/13 by Ian Hudghton to the Commission

Subject: ‘eHealth’ and accessibility for older generations

English version

E-000966/13 by Ian Hudghton to the Commission

Subject: Cross-border university study programmes

English version

E-000967/13 by Ian Hudghton to the Commission

Subject: Continuation of Erasmus and its potential expansion

English version

E-000968/13 by Ian Hudghton to the Commission

Subject: Commission strategies for better management of urban waste water treatment

English version

E-000969/13 by Ian Hudghton to the Commission

Subject: Commission proposals aimed at offering guarantees to young people

English version

E-000970/13 by Ian Hudghton to the Commission

Subject: Commission monitoring of the ‘quantitative status’ of water across Europe

English version

E-000971/13 by Ian Hudghton to the Commission

Subject: Commission monitoring methods for goods and services paid in cash

English version

(České znění)

Otázka k písemnému zodpovězení E-000661/13

Komisi

Olga Sehnalová (S&D)

(23. ledna 2013)

Předmět: Změna sazby DPH u dětských plen

Novelizací zákona o DPH byly v České republice s účinností od 1. ledna 2013 přeřazeny dětské pleny a některé zdravotní prostředky ze snížené sazby DPH do základní sazby DPH. Ministerstvo financí přeřazení plen a zdravotních prostředků oficiálně zdůvodnilo skutečností, že je podle názoru Evropské komise dosavadní zařazení zmíněných dvou skupin výrobků do snížené sazby DPH v rozporu s legislativou Evropské unie.

Jelikož se v diskuzi ohledně daňového zatížení na dětské pleny objevilo hned několik rozdílných interpretací a nespokojení spotřebitelé s malými dětmi tak čelí nejen podstatnému zdražení jednoho ze základních výrobků, ale také nedostatku relevantních informací, prosím Komisi o zodpovězení následujících otázek:

Bylo vůči České republice ze strany Komise zahájeno řízení o porušení Smlouvy o fungování Evropské unie a Komisí navrženo přeřazení těchto dvou skupin výrobků do základní sazby DPH?

Existují mezi členskými státy ty, které mají na DPH u dětských plen vyjednanou výjimku s ohledem na jejich zařazení do snížené sazby DPH, resp. nulovou sazbu, a které to jsou?

Je možné na dětské pleny jakožto pomůcku primárně určenou na inkontinenci uplatňovat sníženou sazbu DPH v souladu se stávající legislativní úpravou EU?

Odpověď pana Šemety jménem Komise

(5. března 2013)

1.

Komise potvrzuje, že v roce 2006 bylo proti České republice zahájeno řízení pro porušení Smlouvy z důvodu uplatňování snížené sazby DPH na dětské pleny.

2.

Spojené království a Irsko uplatňují na tyto výrobky nulovou sazbu DPH na základě článku 110 směrnice o DPH (1), jenž za určitých podmínek umožňuje členským státům, které k 1. lednu 1991 poskytovaly nulové sazby nebo snížené sazby nižší než 5 %, uplatňovat tyto sazby i nadále.

3.

Pleny pro dospělé jsou určeny k léčbě zdravotních obtíží, a spadají tudíž do působnosti kategorie 3) přílohy III směrnice o DPH, která umožňuje uplatnění snížené sazby DPH na výrobky „obvykle užívané pro péči o zdraví, prevenci chorob a pro účely lékařské péče “. Naopak dětské pleny do této kategorie nespadají, protože je nosí všechny děti, zdravé i nemocné, a nejsou obecně spojovány s žádnými zdravotními obtížemi nebo nemocí dítěte.

V roce 2008 Komise předložila Radě návrh (2), který umožňuje uplatňovat na dětské pleny sníženou sazbu DPH. Rada se však nemohla jednomyslně shodnout na novém navrhovaném znění a dále v rámci politické dohody ze dne 10. března 2009 (3) prohlásila, že:

všechny členské státy by měly mít možnost prostřednictvím změny směrnice o DPH uplatňovat sníženou sazbu DPH na některé uvedené položky (dětské pleny nejsou uvedeny) a

že všechny ostatní položky uvedené v návrhu (včetně dětských plen) nejsou pro sníženou sazbu DPH způsobilé.

Z toho je patrný záměr zákonodárné moci EU vyjmout tyto položky ze snížené sazby DPH.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000661/13

to the Commission

Olga Sehnalová (S&D)

(23 January 2013)

Subject: Changing the VAT rate on nappies

In accordance with a revision to the Czech VAT law, which entered into force on 1 January 2013, nappies have been moved from the reduced VAT rate band to the standard VAT rate band. The Czech Ministry of Finance’s official justification for the reclassification of nappies and pharmaceuticals used for healthcare referred to the Commission’s opinion that the inclusion of the two aforementioned product groups in the reduced VAT rate band was in breach of EC law.

Given that several different interpretations have arisen in the debate on the taxation of nappies, and given that anxious consumers with small children are now facing a significant increase in the price of a basic product as well as a lack of relevant information, I should like to put the following questions to the Commission:

Did the Commission launch a TFEU infringement procedure against the Czech Republic, and did it propose moving the two aforementioned product groups into the standard VAT rate band?

Have any Member States negotiated derogations on the inclusion of nappies in the reduced VAT rate band, i.e. the 0% VAT rate band? If so, which Member States?

Is it possible to apply the reduced VAT rate to nappies in the same way as it is applied toincontinence products under EC law?

Answer given by Mr Šemeta on behalf of the Commission

(5 March 2013)

1.

The Commission confirms that in 2006 an infringement procedure was launched against the Czech Republic on account of its applying a reduced VAT rate to infants' diapers.

2.

The UK and Ireland apply a zero VAT rate to these items on the basis of Article 110 of the VAT Directive

2.

The UK and Ireland apply a zero VAT rate to these items on the basis of Article 110 of the VAT Directive

 (4)

3.

Adults' diapers are intended to treat a health disorder and thus fall within the scope of Category (3) to Annex III of the VAT Directive, which allows for the application of a reduced VAT rate to

products ‘

of a kind normally used for healthcare, prevention of illnesses and as treatment for medical purposes’

. By contrast, infants' diapers do not fall within that Category because they are worn by all infants, sick or healthy, and are as a general rule unrelated to any health disorder or illness of the child.

Finally, in 2008 a proposal (5) was submitted by the Commission to the Council which allowed for the application of a reduced VAT rate to infant's diapers. The Council, however, could not unanimously agree on the new wording proposed and further stated, in its political agreement of 10 March 2009 (6) that:

all Member States, by amending the VAT Directive, should have the option to apply a reduced VAT rate to certain items listed therein (infants' diapers not included); and

that all the other items of the proposal (infants' diapers included) are not eligible for a reduced VAT rate.

This shows the intention of the EU legislature to exclude a reduced VAT rate for these items.

(Versão portuguesa)

Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-000662/13

à Comissão (Vice-Presidente/Alta Representante)

Diogo Feio (PPE)

(23 de janeiro de 2013)

Assunto: VP/HR — Guiné-Bissau: possível adiamento das futuras eleições

Será importante para a resolução da grave crise que afeta a Guiné-Bissau que seja retomada a ordem constitucional e que, nesse contexto, possam ter lugar eleições legislativas e presidenciais. Não obstante, a sua realização dentro do prazo previsto no acordo de transição de maio de 2012 parece posta em causa. Segundo o representante especial do Secretário-Geral das Nações Unidas, «Tudo indica que não há meios para que as eleições se realizem no prazo previamente anunciado. Para que as eleições decorram com total transparência e normalidade há muitos passos a serem realizados no terreno, além dos aspetos técnicos e administrativos».

«Além do ato, tem de haver todo um processo de diálogo para que o resultado das eleições venha a ser aceite por todos (…) e isso vai levar mais algum tempo», referiu ainda José Ramos-Horta.

Assim, pergunto à Vice-Presidente/Alta Representante:

Que comentário lhe merecem as declarações de José Ramos-Horta?

Considera possível a realização de eleições dentro do prazo consignado no acordo de transição de maio de 2012?

Resposta dada pela Alta Representante/Vice-Presidente Catherine Ashton em nome da Comissão

(19 de março de 2013)

A AR/VP partilha da opinião do Representante Especial do Secretário-Geral das Nações Unidas, José Ramos-Horta, que será pouco provável que todas as condições e preparações necessárias se realizem de forma suficientemente atempada a fim de organizar eleições no prazo inicialmente previsto, ou seja, em abril de 2013. No entanto, tanto a Alta Representante/Vice-Presidente como o Representante Especial acreditam que as eleições devem ser realizadas o mais rapidamente possível, sem um prolongamento desnecessário da atual «transição» e, em qualquer dos cenários, muito antes do final do ano.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000662/13

to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)

Diogo Feio (PPE)

(23 January 2013)

Subject: VP/HR — Guinea-Bissau: possible postponement of future elections

If the serious crisis affecting Guinea-Bissau is to be resolved, it is important to return to constitutional order and hold legislative and presidential elections. However, there appear to be doubts as to whether it will be possible to hold elections within the deadline laid down in the transition agreement of May 2012. According to the United Nations Secretary-General's special representative, all the signs are that it will not be possible to hold elections in line with the schedule previously announced, and many steps still need to be taken on the ground, in addition to the technical and administrative aspects, in order to ensure that elections can be conducted transparently and in accordance with the rules.

José Ramos-Horta also stressed the need for a lengthy process of dialogue to ensure that the election results will be accepted by all the parties, and this will still require some time.

1.

How does the Vice-President/High Representative view José Ramos-Horta's statements?

2.

Does she consider it possible for elections to be held within the deadline set in the transition agreement of May 2012?

Answer given by High Representative/Vice-President Ashton on behalf of the Commission

(19 March 2013)

The HR/VP shares the opinion of the United Nations Secretary-General's Special Representative, Mr Ramos-Horta, that it will be highly unlikely that all the necessary conditions and preparations are in place in a sufficiently timely manner, in order to hold elections within the initially foreseen deadline, i.e. April 2013. Nevertheless, both the HR/VP and the Special Representative believe that elections must be held as soon as possible, without any unnecessary prolongation of the current ‘transition’ and in any case well before the end of the year.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000663/13

to the Commission

Catherine Bearder (ALDE)

(23 January 2013)

Subject: Guarantees for electrical goods

Following correspondence with the Dyson corporation, I have been told that the two-year minimum guarantee for electrical goods in the single market does not extend across borders, thereby preventing goods being taken back to the same supplier trading in a different EU country to that in which they were purchased. In fact, I was informed that using the purchase across the border would invalidate any guarantee that was given with the goods, in this case a domestic vacuum cleaner.

Can the Commission confirm whether this is the case?

If so, does the Commission have any plans to address this issue? If it is not the case, will the Commission consider giving guidance to retailers and manufacturers as to their obligations?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(27 March 2013)

The right to a legal guarantee under Directive 1999/44/EC exists whenever the customer is residing; however, the faulty good has to be returned to the seller and not to the manufacturer or one of its branch.

The seller cannot refuse to take it back and must, under EC law, repair or replace it, as required by the consumer, or, if that is impossible or disproportionate, grant a price reduction or reimburse the purchase. The cost of the return may however need to be borne by the customer.

European Consumer Centres, co-financed by the European Commission, can advise customers who have an issue with a trader located in another EU country, Norway or Iceland on how to proceed in such cases. The list of ECCs can be founded at http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/ecc/contact_en.htm

Furthermore, the Commission will soon launch a European awareness-raising campaign to inform not only consumers, but also traders also about their rights and duties under EU consumer law, including on the legal guarantee.

(Versión española)

Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-000664/13

a la Comisión

Ramon Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE)

(23 de enero de 2013)

Asunto: Uso indebido de poder corporativo por parte del Estado

En su respuesta E-005976/2012, la Comisión declaraba que «aunque los Estados miembros tengan participación de control en distintas empresas, éstas pueden considerarse independientes si guardan una capacidad de decisión autónoma». Ésta era la posición de la Comisión para valorar la pregunta sobre si BFA debía vender sus participaciones industriales después de su nacionalización. Destacaba además que «si la participación del Estado español no es de control o si las empresas mantienen una capacidad de decisión autónoma, no se plantea problema alguno en relación con la normativa sobre concentraciones».

Además, en su respuesta P-010226/2012 la Comisión decía: «No obstante, y en el contexto del plan de reestructuración de BFA/Bankia que la Comisión aprobó el 28 de noviembre de 2012, BFA/Bankia deberán vender sus participaciones industriales no estratégicas en un plazo de tiempo acordado».

Según fuentes próximas a los consejeros españoles de IAG, la ministra Pastor ha solicitado que no ratifiquen el ERE de Iberia. En este sentido, la ministra ha mantenido reuniones con distintos consejeros del holding para tratar de realizar este objetivo (7).

A la luz de todo lo anterior:

¿Piensa examinar la Comisión si el Gobierno español ha tratado de influir en las decisiones de IAG a través de sus consejeros españoles y las acciones de BFA/Bankia?

¿Cuándo cree la Comisión que es necesario que BFA/Bankia venda sus participaciones industriales en IAG?

Respuesta del Sr. Almunia en nombre de la Comisión

(25 de marzo de 2013)

Un principio general del Derecho de la UE es la neutralidad en relación con la propiedad pública o privada de una empresa (artículo 345 del TFUE). Por consiguiente, está garantizada la igualdad de trato para las empresas públicas y privadas, sin ningún tipo de discriminación (artículo 106, apartado 1, del TFUE).

Por lo tanto, aunque las autoridades españolas hubieran intentado influir en la aprobación del Expediente de Regulación de Empleo (ERE) de Iberia a través del banco de propiedad estatal BFA/Bankia, la Comisión no está facultada para intervenir en la medida en que no existe una infracción de la legislación de la UE. La información que obra actualmente en poder de la Comisión no indica la existencia de una infracción. Basándose en la información facilitada, no parece haber ningún motivo para seguir examinando este asunto.

En el marco de su plan de reestructuración, BFA/Bankia tendrá que vender su cartera de participaciones industriales. El calendario y secuencia de este proceso de desinversión implica secretos comerciales sensibles desde el punto de vista empresarial del Grupo BFA. La divulgación de la información solicitada iría en detrimento de la protección de los intereses comerciales de la empresa, ya que poner esa información a disposición del público podría afectar a su posición competitiva y negociadora en el mercado.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000664/13

to the Commission

Ramon Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE)

(23 January 2013)

Subject: Misuse of corporate power by the Spanish state

In its answer to Written Question E-005976/2012, the Commission stated that ‘even if Member States have controlling interests in several companies, these companies can be considered as independent companies if they have an independent power of decision’. This was the Commission’s position in response to the question of whether BFA should sell its industrial shareholdings following its nationalisation. The Commission also observed that ‘if the stake of the Spanish state is non-controlling or the companies retain independent power of decision, no issue arises under the merger rules’.

Furthermore, in its response to Question P-010226/2012 the Commission said that ‘nevertheless, and in the context of the restructuring plan of BFA/Bankia that the Commission has approved on the 28th of November 2012, BFA/Bankia will have to sell its non-strategic industrial participations within an agreed timetable’.

According to sources close to the Spanish advisers to the International Airlines Group (IAG), Spain’s Minister of Public Works Ana Pastor has asked them not to ratify Iberia’s workforce adjustment plan (ERE). The minister has held meetings with several of the holding’s advisers with a view to achieving this objective.

In light of the above:

Does the Commission intend to examine whether the Spanish Government has tried to influence IAG’s decisions through its Spanish advisers and the shares held by BFA/Bankia?

At what point, in the Commission’s view, should BFA/Bankia sell its industrial shareholdings in IAG?

Answer given by Mr Almunia on behalf of the Commission

(25 March 2013)

A general principle of EC law is neutrality regarding private or public ownership of an undertaking (Article 345 TFEU). Therefore, equal treatment is assured to both public and private firms, without any kind of discrimination (Article 106(1) TFEU).

Thus, even if the Spanish authorities had attempted to influence the ratification of Iberia’s workforce adjustment plan (ERE) through the state-owned BFA/Bankia, the Commission is not empowered to intervene as long as there is no breach of EC law. The information currently in the possession of the Commission does not indicate the existence of an infringement. Based on this information provided, there appears to be no grounds to pursue this matter.

In the context of its restructuring plan, BFA/Bankia will have to dispose of its portfolio of industrial stakes. The specific timing and sequence of this divestment process involves commercially sensitive business secrets of the BFA Group. Disclosure of the information requested would undermine the protection of the company's commercial interests, as putting this information in the public domain would affect its competitive and negotiating position on the market.

(Versione italiana)

Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta P-000665/13

alla Commissione

Mario Borghezio (EFD)

(23 gennaio 2013)

Oggetto: Altro scandalo di fondi europei percepiti dalla mafia

Dopo il caso eclatante dei fondi europei elargiti a Gaetano Riina, fratello del capo dei capi della mafia siciliana, è emerso il nuovo scandalo dei fondi UE percepiti da Giuseppe Spera, figlio del boss Benedetto Spera, uomo di fiducia di Bernardo Provenzano, per un totale di 230 000 EUR, ottenuti tra il 2004 e il 2009 tramite l'Agea, per terreni a suo tempo confiscati al boss Benedetto Spera.

Può la Commissione far sapere quali urgenti misure intende attuare per prevenire e impedire questi casi vergognosi di «finanziamenti europei alla mafia», che non potrebbero avvenire se non attraverso vergognosi e inconfessabili appoggi politici e burocratici?

Risposta di Dacian Cioloș a nome della Commissione

(20 febbraio 2013)

Il contesto dell’interrogazione scritta dell’onorevole Mario Borghezio è collegato a quello delle interrogazioni E-010645/2012 dello stesso onorevole ed E-010706/2012 dell’onorevole Claudio Morganti.

Di conseguenza, la Commissione rinvia alle risposte fornite alle richiamate interrogazioni scritte, e non ha niente di nuovo da aggiungere.

(English version)

Question for written answer P-000665/13

to the Commission

Mario Borghezio (EFD)

(23 January 2013)

Subject: Another scandalous case of EU funds being paid to the mafia

After the shocking case of EU funds going to Gaetano Riina, the brother of the Sicilian mafia’s top boss, a new scandal has now emerged: Giuseppe Spera, the son of mafia boss Benedetto Spera, the right-hand man of Bernardo Provenzano, received a total of EUR 230 000 in EU funds between 2004 and 2009, via Italy’s agricultural grants agency Agea, for land confiscated from mafia boss Benedetto Spera.

This would not have been possible without the disgraceful and disgusting support of politicians and bureaucrats. What urgent measures will the Commission take to prevent and put an end to these shameful cases of ‘EU funds for the mafia’?

Answer given by Mr Cioloş on behalf of the Commission

(20 February 2013)

The background of the question asked by the Honourable Member is related to the background of the question of the Honourable Member E-010645/2012 and the question of the Honourable Member Claudio Morganti E-010706/2012.

The Commission therefore refers to its respective answers given to the questions quoted, and has nothing new to add.

(Magyar változat)

Írásbeli választ igénylő kérdés P-000666/13

a Bizottság számára

Bánki Erik (PPE)

(2013. január 23.)

Tárgy: A tagállamok legjobb gyakorlatai a testnevelés területén

A WHO szerint az 5–17 év közötti gyermekeknek és fiataloknak naponta legalább 60 perc testmozgást kell végezniük szív‐ és légzőszervi, illetve izomrendszeri egészségük, valamint csontjaik egészségének javítása, és a szorongás és depresszió tüneteinek csökkentése érdekében (8).

A testmozgás hiánya ugyanakkor nemcsak az egyén egészségére gyakorol káros hatást, hanem az egészségügyi rendszerekre és a gazdaság egészére is, hiszen a fizikai inaktivitás számottevő közvetlen és közvetett gazdasági költséget generál.

Az oktatás döntő szerepet játszik a gyermekek egészséges életmódra való felkészítésében, ami az egész társadalom számára hasznos.

Tud-e a Bizottság tájékoztatást nyújtani a tagállamok testneveléssel kapcsolatos legjobb gyakorlatainak jelenlegi helyzetéről, különös tekintettel a testnevelésórák rendszeres és kötelező jellegére az egész iskolarendszer – vagyis az általános iskolától a felsőoktatásig – vonatkozásában?

Andrula Vasziliu válasza a Bizottság nevében

(2013. február 19.)

Az egész életen át tartó tanuláshoz szükséges kulcskompetenciákról szóló 2006/962/EK európai parlamenti és tanácsi ajánlás kitüntetett helyen említi a testnevelést, mint a szociális kompetenciához, valamint az egyéni és társadalmi jólléthez nagyban hozzájáruló tényezőt.

Az EU 2008-ban összeállított, testmozgásra vonatkozó iránymutatása szerint a tagállamoknak ajánlatos lenne ágazatközi programokkal népszerűsíteni az egészségmegőrzésben fontos szerepet játszó testmozgást. Az iránymutatás ezzel kapcsolatban az oktatás területén is intézkedéseket javasolt a tagállamok számára. Az egészségvédő testmozgás népszerűsítésével kapcsolatban 2012-ben megfogalmazott tanácsi következtetések alapján a Bizottság pedig jelenleg tanácsi ajánlást készít elő a témában.

Felhívom a Tisztelt Képviselő Úr figyelmét arra, hogy az Európai Unió működéséről szóló szerződés 165. cikke szerint az oktatás és a képzés tartalmának – így többek között a tanterveknek – és az oktatás szervezeti felépítésének a kialakítása a tagállamok kizárólagos hatáskörébe tartozik. Az európai oktatással kapcsolatos legfrissebb adatok azt mutatják, hogy a testnevelésórák aránya az alapfokú oktatásban 5–15 %, a középfokú oktatásban pedig 1–12 % között mozog az egyes tagállamokban (lásd a Eurydice „Kulcsfontosságú adatok az európai oktatásról” című 2012-es kiadványát.)

A sport európai dimenziójának fejlesztéséről szóló közleményében a Bizottság hangsúlyozta, hogy bár több tagállamban is gondot jelent a testnevelési programok színvonala, illetve az ezekben részt vevő pedagógusok képzettsége, mindez viszonylag alacsony költségek árán fejleszthető lenne. Az egész életen át tartó tanulási program révén számos nemzetközi projekt kapott támogatást a tantervek korszerűsítése, például a fogyatékossággal élő tanulók általános testnevelés-oktatásba való bevonása érdekében.

(English version)

Question for written answer P-000666/13

to the Commission

Erik Bánki (PPE)

(23 January 2013)

Subject: Member States' best practices in the field of physical education

According to the WHO, children and young people aged 5-17 should do at least 60 minutes’ physical activity a day in order to improve their cardiorespiratory and muscular fitness and bone health and to reduce the symptoms of anxiety and depression (9).

A lack of physical activity has detrimental effects not only on the health of individuals, but also on health systems and the economy at large, because of the significant direct and indirect economic costs of physical inactivity.

Education plays a crucial role in preparing children for a healthy lifestyle, which has benefits for society as a whole.

Can the Commission provide some information on the state of play and best practices with regard to physical education (PE) in the Member States, particularly as regards the regularity and mandatory nature of PE lessons throughout the schooling system, i.e. from primary schooling to higher education?

Answer given by Ms Vassiliou on behalf of the Commission

(19 February 2013)

The recommendation of the European Parliament and the Council on key competences for lifelong learning (2006/962/EC (10)) highlighted the need for physical education by linking it strongly to social competence and personal and social well-being.

The 2008 EU Physical Activity Guidelines, which encourage Member States to develop cross-sectoral policies to promote health-enhancing physical activity, also call for action in the field of education. Following the 2012 Council conclusions on the promotion of health-enhancing physical activity, the Commission is preparing a proposal for a Council Recommendation in this field.

The Honourable Member will be aware that in accordance with Article 165 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the responsibility for the content and organisation of education and training systems — including curricula — rests entirely with Member States. Recent data on education in Europe show that the percentage of hours devoted to physical education in education varies between Member States from 5% to 15% of total curriculum time in primary education and from 1% to 12% in secondary education (Eurydice: Key Data on Education in Europe 2012).

In its communication ‘Developing the European Dimension of Sport’ (11) the Commission points out that the quality of physical education programmes and the qualifications of the teachers involved remain a concern in many Member States, but could be improved at relatively low cost. Through the Lifelong Learning Programme, several transnational projects have received support to modernise curricula including for example on how to include students with a disability in mainstream physical education.

(Ελληνική έκδοση)

Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-000667/13

προς την Επιτροπή

Georgios Stavrakakis (S&D)

(23 Ιανουαρίου 2013)

Θέμα: Εκτιμώμενες αιτήσεις πληρωμών ανά τομέα πολιτικής και ανά ταμείο για το 2012

Στις διαπραγματεύσεις σχετικά με τον προϋπολογισμό της ΕΕ για το 2013 διαπιστώθηκε η διάσταση θέσεων μεταξύ του Ευρωπαϊκού Κοινοβουλίου και του Συμβουλίου. Τα δύο σκέλη της αρμόδιας για τον προϋπολογισμό αρχής δεν κατόρθωσαν να καταλήξουν σε συμφωνία όσον αφορά τον προϋπολογισμό της ΕΕ για το 2013, καθώς και άλλα στοιχεία του πακέτου διαπραγμάτευσης κατά το στάδιο παρεμβάσεως της επιτροπής συνδιαλλαγής, λόγω αδυναμίας του Συμβουλίου να καταλήξει σε συμφωνία σχετικά με το σχέδιο διορθωτικού προϋπολογισμού (ΣΔΠ) αριθ. 6/2012. Το γεγονός αυτό ανάγκασε την Επιτροπή να δημοσιεύσει νέο σχέδιο προϋπολογισμού στις 23 Νοεμβρίου 2012. Έπειτα από τη διευθέτηση ορισμένων ενστάσεων του Ευρωπαϊκού Κοινοβουλίου, βρέθηκε λύση την τελευταία στιγμή, και επιτεύχθηκε συμφωνία τόσο για το ΣΔΠ 6/2012 όσο και για τον προϋπολογισμό του 2013.

Παρά το ΣΔΠ 6/2012, εκτιμάται ότι οι αιτήσεις πληρωμών που δεν καταβλήθηκαν για το 2012 στο πλαίσιο της επιμερισμένης διαχείρισης για τον Νοέμβριο και Δεκέμβριο 2012 θα ανέλθουν περίπου στο ποσό των 16 δισ. ευρώ.

Θα μπορούσε να προσδιορίσει η Επιτροπή το πραγματικό ποσό των αιτήσεων πληρωμών που ελήφθησαν αλλά δεν κατεβλήθησαν το 2012, και να παράσχει λεπτομερή ανάλυση των εν λόγω αιτήσεων ανά τομέα πολιτικής και ανά ταμείο;

Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-000668/13

προς την Επιτροπή

Georgios Stavrakakis (S&D)

(23 Ιανουαρίου 2013)

Θέμα: Εκτιμώμενες αιτήσεις πληρωμών ανά κράτος μέλος για το 2012

Στις διαπραγματεύσεις σχετικά με τον προϋπολογισμό της ΕΕ για το 2013 διαπιστώθηκε ο βαθμός απόκλισης μεταξύ των θέσεων του Ευρωπαϊκού Κοινοβουλίου και του Συμβουλίου. Τα δύο σκέλη της αρμόδιας για τον προϋπολογισμό αρχής δεν κατόρθωσαν να καταλήξουν σε συμφωνία όσον αφορά τον προϋπολογισμό της ΕΕ για το 2013, ή άλλα στοιχεία του πακέτου διαπραγμάτευσης κατά το στάδιο παρεμβάσεως της επιτροπής συνδιαλλαγής, λόγω αδυναμίας του Συμβουλίου να καταλήξει σε συμφωνία σχετικά με το σχέδιο διορθωτικού προϋπολογισμού (ΣΔΠ) αριθ. 6/2012. Το γεγονός αυτό ανάγκασε την Επιτροπή να δημοσιεύσει νέο σχέδιο προϋπολογισμού στις 23 Νοεμβρίου 2012. Έπειτα από τη διευθέτηση ορισμένων ενστάσεων του Κοινοβουλίου, βρέθηκε λύση την τελευταία στιγμή, και επιτεύχθηκε συμφωνία τόσο για το ΣΔΠ 6/2012 όσο και για τον προϋπολογισμό του 2013.

Παρά το ΣΔΠ αριθ. 6/2012, εκτιμάται ότι οι αιτήσεις πληρωμών τις οποίες απέστειλαν τα κράτη μέλη για το 2012 και δεν καταβλήθηκαν στο πλαίσιο της επιμερισμένης διαχείρισης για τον Νοέμβριο και Δεκέμβριο 2012 θα ανέλθουν περίπου στο ποσό των 16 δισ. ευρώ.

Θα μπορούσε η Επιτροπή να παράσχει πληροφορίες σχετικά με το πραγματικό συνολικό ποσό αιτήσεων πληρωμών που ελήφθησαν αλλά δεν κατεβλήθησαν το 2012, μαζί με λεπτομερή ανάλυση των εν λόγω αιτήσεων ανά κράτος μέλος;

Κοινή απάντηση του κ. Lewandowski εξ ονόματος της Επιτροπής

(8 Μαρτίου 2013)

Στις 30 Ιανουαρίου 2013, η Επιτροπή έστειλε στο Ευρωπαϊκό Κοινοβούλιο τις αιτούμενες πληροφορίες μέσω του σημειώματος ARES(2013)78000 που απευθύνεται στον πρόεδρο Lamassoure, με αντίγραφο στη γραμματεία της επιτροπής προϋπολογισμού του Ευρωπαϊκού Κοινοβουλίου. Στο σημείωμα αυτό παρέχονται οι λεπτομέρειες σχετικά με τα 16,2 δισεκατ. ευρώ των εκκρεμουσών αιτήσεων πληρωμών ανά ταμείο (και, ως εκ τούτου, ανά τομέα πολιτικής) και ανά κράτος μέλος.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000667/13

to the Commission

Georgios Stavrakakis (S&D)

(23 January 2013)

Subject: Estimated payment requests for 2012 per policy area and per fund

The negotiations on the 2013 EU budget revealed the divergence in positions between the European Parliament and the Council. The two arms of the budgetary authority were not able to reach an agreement on the 2013 EU budget and the other elements of the negotiating package at the Conciliation Committee stage owing to the inability of the Council to reach an agreement on Draft Amending Budget (DAB) No 6/2012. This led the Commission to issue a new draft budget on 23 November 2012. After addressing some the European Parliament’s concerns, at the last moment a solution was found and an agreement was reached on both DAB 6/2012 and on the 2013 budget.

Notwithstanding DAB 6/2012, it is estimated that the unpaid payment requests for 2012 under shared management for November and December 2012 will amount to around EUR 16 billion.

Could the Commission specify the actual amount of payment requests received but not paid in 2012 and provide a detailed breakdown of these requests per policy area and per fund?

Question for written answer E-000668/13

to the Commission

Georgios Stavrakakis (S&D)

(23 January 2013)

Subject: Estimated payment requests for 2012 by Member State

The negotiations on the 2013 EU budget revealed the extent of the divergence between the positions of Parliament and the Council. The two arms of the budgetary authority were not able to reach an agreement on the 2013 EU budget or the other elements of the negotiating package at the Conciliation Committee stage, owing to the inability of the Council to reach an agreement on Draft Amending Budget (DAB) No 6/2012. This led the Commission to publish a new draft budget on 23 November 2012. Some of Parliament’s concerns having been addressed, at the last moment a solution was found and an agreement was reached on both DAB No 6/2012 and the 2013 budget.

Notwithstanding DAB No 6/2012, it is estimated that the unpaid payment requests sent by Member States for 2012 under shared management for November and December 2012 will total some EUR 16 billion.

Could the Commission provide information on the real total of payment requests received but not paid in 2012, together with a detailed breakdown of those requests by Member State?

Joint answer given by Mr Lewandowski on behalf of the Commission

(8 March 2013)

On 30 January 2013, the Commission sent to the European Parliament the requested information through the note ARES(2013)78000 addressed to President Lamassoure and copied to the Secretariat of the Budget Committee of the European Parliament. This note gives the detail of the EUR 16,2 billion of pending payment claims divided by fund (and hence by policy area) and by Member States.

(Ελληνική έκδοση)

Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-000669/13

προς την Επιτροπή

Georgios Stavrakakis (S&D)

(23 Ιανουαρίου 2013)

Θέμα: Επίπεδο των υπολοίπων προς εκκαθάριση (RAL) από το 2007 έως το 2012

Τα υπόλοιπα προς εκκαθάριση (RAL, reste à liquider) περιλαμβάνουν όλες τις εκκρεμείς υποχρεώσεις οι οποίες παραμένουν ανεξόφλητες σε δεδομένη χρονική στιγμή και το γεγονός ότι αυτές ολοένα αυξάνονται συνιστά ένα εκ των σημαντικότερων ζητημάτων ανησυχίας στο πλαίσιο της εκτέλεσης του προϋπολογισμού της ΕΕ.

Θα μπορούσε η Επιτροπή να παράσχει λεπτομερή ανάλυση του επιπέδου των RAL από την αρχή του τρέχοντος πολυετούς δημοσιονομικού πλαισίου (2007) έως τα τέλη του 2012;

Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-000670/13

προς την Επιτροπή

Georgios Stavrakakis (S&D)

(23 Ιανουαρίου 2013)

Θέμα: Σύνθεση των υπολοίπων προς εκκαθάριση (RAL) από το 2007 έως το 2012

Η έννοια των υπολοίπων προς εκκαθάριση (RAL, restes à liquider) περιλαμβάνει όλες τις εκκρεμείς υποχρεώσεις οι οποίες παραμένουν ανεξόφλητες σε δεδομένη χρονική στιγμή και το γεγονός ότι αυτές ολοένα αυξάνονται συνιστά ένα εκ των σημαντικότερων ζητημάτων ανησυχίας στο πλαίσιο της εκτέλεσης του προϋπολογισμού της ΕΕ.

Θα μπορούσε η Επιτροπή να παράσχει λεπτομερή ανάλυση της σύνθεσης των RAL από την αρχή του τρέχοντος πολυετούς δημοσιονομικού πλαισίου (2007) έως τα τέλη του 2012;

Κοινή απάντηση του κ. Lewandowski εξ ονόματος της Επιτροπής

(4 Μαρτίου 2013)

Η λεπτομερής ανάλυση του επιπέδου των υπολοίπων προς εκκαθάριση (RAL) από την αρχή του τρέχοντος πολυετούς δημοσιονομικού πλαισίου (2007) έως τα τέλη του 2012 περιέχεται στο Παράρτημα που διαβιβάστηκε απευθείας στο αξιότιμο μέλος και στη Γραμματεία του Κοινοβουλίου.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000669/13

to the Commission

Georgios Stavrakakis (S&D)

(23 January 2013)

Subject: Level of RALs from 2007 until 2012

The RAL (reste à liquider) refers to all outstanding commitments which remain unpaid at a given point in time, and its increasing level is one of the most important areas of concern in the execution of the EU budget.

Could the Commission provide a detailed breakdown of the level of RALs from the beginning of the current multiannual financial framework (2007) until the end of 2012?

Question for written answer E-000670/13

to the Commission

Georgios Stavrakakis (S&D)

(23 January 2013)

Subject: Composition of RALs between 2007 and 2012

The term ‘RALs’ (restes à liquider) refers to all outstanding commitments which remain to be paid at a given point in time. The increasing level of RALs is one of the main issues of concern regarding the execution of the EU budget.

Could the Commission provide a detailed breakdown of the composition of RALs, from the beginning of the current multiannual financial framework (2007) up to the end of 2012?

Joint answer given by Mr Lewandowski on behalf of the Commission

(4 March 2013)

The detailed breakdown of the level of RALs from the beginning of the current multiannual financial framework (2007) until the end of 2012 is shown in the annex sent directly to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.

(Ελληνική έκδοση)

Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-000671/13

προς την Επιτροπή

Georgios Stavrakakis (S&D)

(23 Ιανουαρίου 2013)

Θέμα: Προβλεπόμενα υπόλοιπα προς εκκαθάριση (RAL) για το πρώτο τρίμηνο του 2013

Τα υπόλοιπα προς εκκαθάριση (RAL, reste à liquider) περιλαμβάνουν όλες τις εκκρεμείς υποχρεώσεις οι οποίες παραμένουν ανεξόφλητες σε δεδομένη χρονική στιγμή και το γεγονός ότι αυτές ολοένα αυξάνονται συνιστά ένα εκ των σημαντικότερων ζητημάτων ανησυχίας στο πλαίσιο της εκτέλεσης του προϋπολογισμού της ΕΕ.

Λαμβάνοντας υπόψη τη σημαντική αύξηση των RAL από τα προηγούμενα έτη, θα μπορούσε η Επιτροπή να παράσχει μια εκτίμηση του επιπέδου και της σύνθεσης των RAL σε κάθε κράτος μέλος για το πρώτο τρίμηνο του 2013;

Απάντηση του κ. Lewandowski εξ ονόματος της Επιτροπής

(25 Μαρτίου 2013)

Το σύνολο των εκκρεμών αναλήψεων υποχρεώσεων (RAL) στο τέλος ενός οικονομικού έτους αποτελεί προϊόν της εφαρμογής μιας σειράς ετήσιων προϋπολογισμών με αναλήψεις υποχρεώσεων και πληρωμές. Ωστόσο, σε κάθε οικονομικό έτος ο μηνιαίος ρυθμός δημοσιονομικών δεσμεύσεων και εκτέλεσης πληρωμών μπορεί να διαφέρει σημαντικά. Τα αριθμητικά στοιχεία των RAL κατά τη διάρκεια του έτους δεν μπορούν, συνεπώς, να συγκριθούν με αποδοτικό τρόπο με τα στοιχεία RAL στο τέλος του έτους. Μία εκτίμηση για το χρονικό διάστημα μέχρι το τέλος του πρώτου τριμήνου θα έπρεπε επιπρόσθετα να βασίζεται σε μια σειρά παραδοχών.

Για να διασφαλιστεί η συγκρισιμότητα με το σύνολο των αριθμητικών στοιχείων RAL που παρέχονται στην απάντηση της Επιτροπής στις ερωτήσεις E-000669/2013 και E-000670/2013 (12) του Αξιότιμου Μέλους του Κοινοβουλίου, η ζητηθείσα κατανομή των RAL ανά κράτος μέλος παρέχεται για την περίοδο από τις 31 Δεκεμβρίου 2012.

Μία τέτοια κατανομή ανά κράτος μέλος είναι δυνατή μόνο για τις δράσεις των διαρθρωτικών ταμείων υπό επιμερισμένη διαχείριση στους τομείς 1β και 2 του δημοσιονομικού πλαισίου (13). Τα συνολικά ποσά ανά τομέα δεν περιλαμβάνουν δαπάνες οι οποίες δεν προορίζονται για συγκεκριμένα κράτη μέλη (λοιπά προγράμματα, τεχνική βοήθεια κ.λπ.).

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000671/13

to the Commission

Georgios Stavrakakis (S&D)

(23 January 2013)

Subject: Estimated RAL projection for the first quarter of 2013

The RAL (reste à liquider) refers to all outstanding commitments which remain unpaid at a given point in time, and its increasing level is one of the most important areas of concern in the execution of the EU budget.

Given the significant accrual of RALs from previous years, could the Commission provide an estimated projection of the level and composition of RALs in each Member State for the first quarter of 2013?

Answer given by Mr Lewandowski on behalf of the Commission

(25 March 2013)

Total outstanding commitments (RAL) at the end of a given financial year are the result of the implementation of a series of annual budgets in commitments and payments. Within each financial year the monthly rhythm of budget commitment and payment execution may however vary considerably. RAL figures during the year therefore cannot be compared in a meaningful way to end of year RAL figures. A projection up to the end of the first quarter would in addition have to be based on a series of assumptions.

In order to ensure the comparability with the overall RAL figures provided in the Commission's reply to the Honourable Member's questions E-000669/2013 and E-000670/2013 (14), the requested breakdown of RAL by Member State is provided as of 31 December 2012.

Such a breakdown by Member State is only possible for structural actions funds under shared management in Headings 1b and 2 of the Financial Framework. (15) The total amounts by Heading do not include expenditure that is not earmarked to specific Member States (other programmes, technical assistance etc.).

(Deutsche Fassung)

Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-000672/13

an die Kommission (Vizepräsidentin/Hohe Vertreterin)

Franz Obermayr (NI)

(23. Januar 2013)

Betrifft: VP/HR — Causa Dr. Cyril Karabus und Menschenrechte in den VAE

Dr. Cyril Karabus wird seit August 2012 in den VAE festgehalten, weil ihm der Tod eines Kindes im Jahre 2003 angelastet wird. Der 77 Jahre alte Kinderarzt Cyril Karabus hatte 2003 für vier Wochen in Abu Dhabi als Urlaubsvertretung auf der Kinderonkologie gearbeitet. Während dieses Aufenthalts starb ein Kind auf seiner Station. Nach seiner Rückkehr in seine Heimat erstattete der Vater des Kindes Anzeige; der Arzt hätte eine Transfusion nicht durchgeführt und sei deshalb für den Tod verantwortlich. Karabus hat von der Anzeige jahrelang nichts gewusst. Fast zehn Jahre später, im August 2012, als der südafrikanische Arzt nach einer Hochzeitsfeier seines Sohnes in Kanada über die VAE zurückflog und in Dubai zwischenlandete, wurde er festgenommen und sitzt seitdem im Gefängnis. 13 Verhandlungen sind laut Medienberichten über die Bühne gegangen. Die Geschichte ist sehr ähnlich gelagert wie der Fall des Oberösterreichers Eugen Adelsmayr; auch hier sind Krankenakten auf einmal nicht auffindbar. Und obwohl nichts gegen den Mediziner vorliegt, ist er zunächst einmal schuldig.

Der Fall findet international großes Interesse, und über ihn ist in „The Economist“, „The British Medical Journal“, etc. berichtet worden. Dr. Karabus befand sich auf dem Heimweg nach Südafrika von einer Hochzeit in Kanada, musste daher eine Nacht in Dubai verbringen und wurde am nächsten Morgen (18. August) bei der Passkontrolle einfach festgenommen. Medienberichten zufolge erhalten seine Anwälte keinen Zugang zu allen wichtigen Dokumenten, was seine Verteidigung fast unmöglich macht. Seine Frau, seine Tochter und sein Schwiegersohn mussten das Land verlassen, weil sie nur ein kurzfristiges Visum besaßen.

1.

Kennt die Vizepräsidentin/Hohe Vertreterin den Fall Dr. Karabus, und wenn ja, wie beurteilt sie seine überraschende Inhaftierung im August 2012 auf der Grundlage zweifelhafter Beweise?

2.

Vielleicht gelingt es durch eine noch breitere Öffentlichkeit, Dr. Karabus zu helfen. Welche Möglichkeiten gäbe es nach Meinung der Vizepräsidentin/Hohe Vertreterin, diesen Fall seitens der EU aktiv zu unterstützen?

3.

Der südafrikanische Ärzteverband und die WHO warnen ihre Mitglieder angeblich bereits davor, in den Vereinigten Arabischen Emiraten als Ärzte zu arbeiten. Wie beurteilt die Vizepräsidentin/Hohe Vertreterin die Empfehlungen?

4.

Viele Krankenhäuser in den VAE werden von ausländischen Ärzten aus der ganzen Welt geleitet. Welche Empfehlungen für Ärzte und andere Arbeitskräfte aus Europa sind hier nach Meinung der Vizepräsidentin/Hohe Vertreterin unter den vorherrschenden Sicherheitsbedingungen angebracht?

Antwort von Frau Ashton — Hohe Vertreterin/Vizepräsidentin im Namen der Kommission

(22. April 2013)

Die Hohe Vertreterin/Vizepräsidentin hat den Fall Dr. E. Adelsmayr in den Vereinigten Arabischen Emiraten (VAE) von Anfang an in enger Zusammenarbeit mit den österreichischen Behörden verfolgt. Dem EAD ist das Schicksal des Dr. Karabus bekannt; er kann allerdings zu diesem Fall nicht Stellung nehmen, da es sich bei Dr. Karabus um einen Staatsangehörigen der Republik Südafrika handelt. Nach Kenntnisstand des EAD stehen die südafrikanischen Behörden in diesem Fall mit den Behörden der Vereinigten Arabischen Emirate auf Ministerebene in Kontakt.

Die EU hat für medizinisches Personal, das in den VAE arbeiten möchte, keine Empfehlung ausgesprochen. Die EU wird auch weiterhin einzelne Fälle von in den VAE inhaftierten oder angeklagten EU-Bürgern verfolgen und erforderlichenfalls mit den vor Ort vertretenen EU-Mitgliedstaaten zusammenarbeiten. Das Ziel und der Zweck des Rechts auf ein faires Verfahren sind fester Bestandteil des Grundsatzes der Rechtsstaatlichkeit und für den Schutz der Menschenrechte von wesentlicher Bedeutung. Daher wird sich der EAD auch weiterhin für die Achtung des humanitären Völkerrechts, einer fairen und unparteiischen Justiz und der Gleichheit vor dem Gesetz einsetzen.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000672/13

to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)

Franz Obermayr (NI)

(23 January 2013)

Subject: VP/HR — Case of Dr Cyril Karabus and human rights in the United Arab Emirates

Dr Cyril Karabus, a 77 year old South African paediatrician, has been held in the United Arab Emirates since August 2012 accused of causing the death of a child in 2003. In 2003 Cyril Karabus worked for four weeks in Abu Dhabi as a child oncology locum. During this time a child died on his ward. Having returned to his home town, the child’s father reported the doctor to the authorities, saying that he had not carried out a transfusion and was therefore responsible for the child’s death. Dr Karabus knew nothing about this for years. Almost 10 years later, in August 2012, Dr Karabus flew via the UAE on his way home from his son’s wedding in Canada. He had a stopover in Dubai where he was arrested and has been in prison ever since. Media reports say that there have been 13 hearings so far. This story is very similar to the case of the Austrian Eugen Adelsmayr; once again, medical files suddenly cannot be found. And even though there is no evidence against Dr Karabus, he is being regarded as guilty.

The case has aroused great interest internationally, with reports in the Economist, the British Medical Journal, etc. Dr Karabus was on his way home to South Africa from a wedding in Canada, had to spend a night in Dubai and was arrested the next morning (18 August) during a passport check. According to media reports, his lawyer does not have access to all the important documents, which makes defending him nearly impossible. His wife, daughter and son-in-law have had to leave the country because they only had short stay visas.

1.

Does the Vice-President/High Representative know about Dr Karabus’ case? If so, what is her view of his unexpected imprisonment in August 2012 on the basis of dubious evidence?

2.

It is possible that making the case more widely known would help Dr Karabus. How does the Vice-President/High Representative think the EU can be active in supporting his case?

3.

The South African Medical Association and the WHO are apparently already warning their members against taking up posts as doctors in the UAE. What is the Vice-President/High Representative's opinion of this advice?

4.

Many hospitals in the UAE are run by foreign doctors from around the world. In view of the prevailing security conditions, what advice does the Vice-President/High Representative think should be given to doctors and other workers from Europe?

Answer given by Hight Representative/Vice-President Ashton on behalf of the Commission

(22 April 2013)

The HR/VP has followed the case of Dr E. Adelsmayr in the United Arab Emirates throughout, in close cooperation with the Austrian authorities. The EEAS is aware of the fate of Dr Karabus, but is not in a position to comment on the wherabouts of this case, since Dr Karabus is a South African national. The EEAS understands that the South African authorities have engaged the UAE authorities at Ministerial level on this case.

The EU has not issued any advice to medical practitioners wishing to work in the UAE. The EU will continue to follow individual cases of EU citizens imprisoned or charged in the UAE as and when necessary, in collaboration with EU Member States represented locally. The object and purpose of the right to a fair trial is enshrined in the principle of the rule of law and essential to safeguard human rights. Therefore, the EEAS will continue to promote observance of international humanitarian law, of fair and impartial administration of justice and of equality before the law.

(Wersja polska)

Pytanie wymagające odpowiedzi pisemnej E-000673/13

do Komisji

Zbigniew Ziobro (EFD) oraz Tadeusz Cymański (EFD)

(23 stycznia 2013 r.)

Przedmiot: Sytuacja w Fabryce Maszyn w Leżajsku

W ostatnim tygodniu z biura posła Kazimierza Ziobro z Rzeszowa dotarła do nas alarmująca wiadomość dotycząca ogłoszenia upadłości Fabryki Maszyn w Leżajsku. Jest to działający od ponad 40 lat, największy w Polsce zakład produkujący betoniarki hydrauliczne oraz podzespoły i części zamienne. Według informacji przekazanych przez posła Ziobro wypowiedzenia obejmą około 230 osób, co więcej większość z nich od czterech miesięcy nie otrzymywała wypłaty należnego wynagrodzenia.

1.

Czy Komisja jest świadoma tragicznej sytuacji w Fabryce Maszyn w Leżajsku?

2.

Czy Rząd Polski wystąpił już do Komisji o uruchomienie środków z Europejskiego Funduszu Dostosowania do Globalizacji (EFG) dla osób zwalnianych w leżajskich zakładach maszynowych? Kiedy Komisja może wpłacić środki pomocowe dla zwalnianych?

3.

Jak Komisja zamierza wspierać powrót na rynek pracowników z sektorów przemysłu maszynowego zwalnianych ze względu na kryzys, szczególnie z części sektora tak silnie związanego z budownictwem jak zakłady w Leżajsku?

4.

Zakłady maszynowe to jeden z największych i najważniejszych pracodawców w Leżajsku, wraz ze zwolnieniami znacznie pogarsza się sytuacja miasta dotkniętego już i tak wysokim bezrobociem (17,2 %). Czy w nowej perspektywie finansowej Komisja zamierza przeznaczyć dodatkowe środki na wsparcie dla miast takich jak Leżajsk, gdzie upadek zakładów przemysłowych prowadzi do strukturalnego bezrobocia?

5.

Jaki wpływ na rynek maszynowy ma nieograniczony import maszyn z Chin?

Odpowiedź udzielona przez komisarza László Andora w imieniu Komisji

(21 marca 2013 r.)

1.

Komisja jest zaniepokojona społecznymi i ekonomicznymi skutkami, jakie może wywołać ogłoszenie upadłości Fabryki Maszyn w Leżajsku.

2.–3. Komisja nie posiada informacji o jakimkolwiek wniosku o finansowanie z EFG (16) przygotowywanym przez Polskę w związku ze zwolnieniami grupowymi, o których mowa w pytaniu. Osoba kontaktowa do spraw EFG w Polsce może udzielić informacji, czy planowane jest złożenie takiego wniosku (17). Poza EFG kluczowym źródłem wsparcia UE w zakresie poziomu kwalifikacji pracowników i perspektyw na rynku pracy jest EFS. W 2012 r. 135 pracowników Fabryki Maszyn w Leżajsku odbyło szkolenie współfinansowane ze środków EFS (18). Wojewódzki Urząd Pracy w Rzeszowie może przedstawić Szanownym Panom Posłom wszelkie szczegóły.

4.

Wszystkie interwencje EFRR w ramach Regionalnego Programu Operacyjnego Województwa Podkarpackiego na lata 2007-2013, których suma wynosi łącznie niemal 1,45 miliarda EUR, przyczyniają się do zmniejszania problemów strukturalnych tego regionu. Ponadto odrębna oś priorytetowa RPO Podkarpackie poświęcona została zwiększaniu spójności wewnątrzregionalnej. W przyszłym okresie programowania Komisja będzie zachęcać regionalne władze województwa podkarpackiego do zwiększenia wsparcia dla obszarów zmagających się z poważnymi brakami strukturalnymi. Ponadto przystosowanie pracowników, przedsiębiorstw i przedsiębiorców do zmian jest jednym z priorytetów inwestycyjnych proponowanych w przyszłym rozporządzeniu w sprawie EFS.

5.

Import maszyn przez UE z Chin, jak i z innych krajów trzecich należących WTO, jest dozwolony, o ile jest to zgodne z prawem UE. Szanowni Panowie Posłowie mogą zauważyć, że według badań przeprowadzonych przez Komisję w 2011 r. w sektorze maszyn UE nastąpił wzrost wydajności przewyższający ogólny wzrost w przemyśle wytwórczym UE, pomimo dotkliwych skutków poprzedniego kryzysu finansowego.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000673/13

to the Commission

Zbigniew Ziobro (EFD) and Tadeusz Cymański (EFD)

(23 January 2013)

Subject: Situation at the Leżajsk Machine Plant

In the past week, we have received alarming news from Member of the Sejm Kazimierz Ziobro’s office in Rzeszów concerning the announcement of the bankruptcy of the Leżajsk Machine Plant. Established over 40 years ago, it is the largest plant in Poland producing hydraulic cement mixers, sub‐assemblies and spare parts. According to information provided by Mr Ziobro, approximately 230 people will be laid off. Furthermore, the majority of them have not received any pay for four months.

1.

Is the Commission aware of the alarming situation at the Leżajsk Machine Plant?

2.

Has the Polish Government asked the Commission to mobilise funds from the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund to assist people laid off from the Leżajsk Machine Plant? When will the Commission be able to provide financial assistance to those laid off?

3.

How does the Commission intend to help workers from the mechanical engineering sector laid off as a result of the crisis, particularly those workers from parts of the sector that are as closely tied to the construction industry as the plants in Leżajsk?

4.

The machine plants are one of the largest and most important employers in Leżajsk, and the wave of redundancies will significantly aggravate the situation in a city already hard‐hit by high levels of unemployment (17.2%). Does the Commission plan to allocate additional resources under the forthcoming multiannual financial framework to support cities like Leżajsk, where industrial decline is leading to structural unemployment?

5.

What influence is the unrestricted importation of machines from China having on themachine market?

Answer given by Mr Andor on behalf of the Commission

(21 March 2013)

1.

The Commission is concerned with the social and economic consequences that the bankruptcy of the Leżajsk Machine Plant may bring.

2-3. The Commission is not aware of any application for funding from the EGF (19) being prepared by Poland related to the redundancies referred to in the question. The EGF Contact Person for Poland can be contacted to ask whether an application is being planned (20). Besides the EGF, the ESF is a key source of EU support to embrace people's skills and perspectives on the labour market. In 2012, 135 employees of the Lezajsk Machine Plant received training co-funded by ESF (21) . The Voivodship Labour Office in Rzeszow can provide the Honourable Members with all details.

4.

All ERDF interventions carried out under the Regional Operational Programme for Podkarpackie 2007-2013 amounting to almost EUR 1.45 billion, contribute to alleviating the structural problems of the region. Furthermore, ROP Podkarpackie has a dedicated priority axis designed to foster greater intraregional convergence. In the future programming period the Commission will encourage the regional authorities of Podkarpackie to strengthen support for areas suffering from severe structural deficiencies. Besides, the adaptation to change of workers, enterprises and entrepreneurs is one of the investment priorities proposed in the future ESF regulation.

5.

EU imports of machines from China, like from other third country members of the WTO, are allowed as long as these comply with EC law. The Honourable Members may wish to note that, following a 2011 study by the Commission, the EU machinery sector has enjoyed a growth in productivity higher than in the EU manufacturing industry as a whole, despite being hit hard by the previous financial crisis.

(Wersja polska)

Pytanie wymagające odpowiedzi pisemnej E-000674/13

do Komisji

Marek Henryk Migalski (ECR)

(23 stycznia 2013 r.)

Przedmiot: Białoruskiej niezależnej dziennikarce grozi deportacja

21 stycznia media poinformowały, że władze Szwecji odmówiły białoruskiej niezależnej dziennikarce Oldze Kłaskowskiej prawa na pobyt stały i zdecydowały, że wraz z 11-letnią córką zostanie deportowana z kraju. Sześciomiesięczny syn Olgi Kłaskowskiej – obywatel Szwecji – decyzją władz ma pozostać w Sztokholmie.

Kłaskowska na Białorusi działała w organizacji „Młody Front”, pracowała też w opozycyjnej gazecie „Narodnaja Wola”. Gdy za działalność opozycyjną wyrzucono ją ze studiów i zaczęły się pogróżki, zdecydowała się uciec z Mińska. Wyjechała do Polski, gdzie otrzymała azyl polityczny, a potem do Szwecji. Dziennikarka utraciła status uchodźcy politycznego, kiedy na początku 2011 r. wyjechała na Białoruś, aby wesprzeć brata, który po wyborach prezydenckich w 2010 r. został oskarżony o udział w masowych zamieszkach i skazany na 5 lat kolonii karnej o zaostrzonym rygorze.

5 maja 2011 r. dziennikarka została dotkliwie pobita przez milicjantów na komisariacie w Mińsku, gdzie została przewieziona po aresztowaniu w mieszkaniu brata. Będąc pod presją prześladowań ze strony organów ścigania opuściła Białoruś latem 2011 r.

Zwracam się więc z zapytaniem, czy Komisja posiada informacje na temat decyzji szwedzkich władz odnośnie do prawa na pobyt stały dla niezależnej białoruskiej dziennikarki Olgi Kłaskowskiej i ma zamiar podjąć interwencję, by nie doprowadzić do jej deportacji?

Odpowiedź udzielona przez komisarz Cecilię Malmström w imieniu Komisji

(27 marca 2013 r.)

Komisja nie zna okoliczności sprawy opisanej przez Szanownego Pana Posła.

Decyzje o przyznaniu ochrony międzynarodowej mogą zostać podjęte wyłącznie przez właściwe władze krajowe państw członkowskich UE, dla każdego przypadku z osobna i w zależności od indywidualnej sytuacji każdego wnioskodawcy, przy jednoczesnym zapewnieniu pełnej zgodności z dorobkiem prawnym UE w dziedzinie azylu. Podobnie poszczególne procedury powrotu są zarządzane na szczeblu krajowym, a władze krajowe są zobowiązane do sprawdzenia, czy wszystkie odpowiednie wymogi przewidziane w prawodawstwie UE, włącznie z poszanowaniem zasady non-refoulement, są spełnione.

Komisja nie jest organem odwoławczym w dziedzinie azylu, ani w kwestiach dotyczących powrotów imigrantów do krajów ich pochodzenia. Jest to przede wszystkim zadanie sądów krajowych. Komisja może jednak interweniować, jako strażnik prawa unijnego, jeśli można jasno dowieść, iż państwo członkowskie naruszyło prawa przyznane osobom fizycznym na mocy przepisów Unii. Zdarzenia, do których odnosi się Szanowny Pan Poseł, nie zawierają wystarczających danych wskazujących na to, że tak rzeczywiście jest. W związku z tym Komisja nie jest w stanie podjąć dalszych działań, ani zwrócić się z zaleceniem do władz Szwecji.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000674/13

to the Commission

Marek Henryk Migalski (ECR)

(23 January 2013)

Subject: Independent Belarusian journalist under threat of deportation

On 21 January 2013 it was reported in the media that the Swedish authorities had refused to grant the independent Belarusian journalist Olga Klaskovskaya the right to reside in Sweden and decided that she and her 11 year-old daughter should be deported from the country. They also decided that Ms Klaskovskaya’s six month-old son, who is a Swedish citizen, is to remain in Stockholm.

Ms Klaskovskaya was a member of the Youth Front organisation in Belarus and worked for the opposition paper Narodnaja Wola. When, as a result of her opposition activities, she was expelled from university and started to receive threats, she decided to leave Minsk, travelling first to Poland, where she was granted political asylum, and then to Sweden. Ms Klaskovskaya lost her status as a political refugee when, in early 2011, she travelled to Belarus to help her brother who, following the presidential elections in 2010, was charged with involvement in mass riots and sentenced to five years' imprisonment in a high-security prison camp.

On 5 May 2011 Ms Klaskovskaya was severely beaten by officers at a Minsk police station to which she had been taken after being arrested at her brother's flat. In order to escape constant harassment by law enforcement agencies, she left Belarus in the summer of 2011.

Is the Commission aware of the Swedish authorities’ decision not to grant the independent Belarusian journalist Olga Klaskovskaya the right to reside in Sweden, and does it intend to intervene to prevent her deportation?

Answer given by Ms Malmström on behalf of the Commission

(27 March 2013)

The Commission is not aware of the circumstances behind the case referred to by the Honourable Member.

Decisions to grant international protection can only be adopted by the competent national authorities of the EU Member States, on a case by case basis and depending on the individual circumstances of each applicant, while ensuring full respect of the EU asylum acquis. Likewise individual return procedures are managed at national level and national authorities are obliged to check that all relevant requirements provided for in EU legislation, including respect of the principle of non-refoulement, are fulfilled.

The Commission is not an appeals body on asylum or return issues. This task is in the first place performed by national courts. As Guardian of Union law, the Commission may, however, intervene if it can be clearly demonstrated that a Member State has infringed rights accorded to individuals under Union law. The facts referred to by the Honourable Member do not contain sufficient indication that this is the case. The Commission is therefore not in a position to take further action or to address a recommendation to the Swedish authorities.

(Deutsche Fassung)

Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-000676/13

an die Kommission

Franz Obermayr (NI)

(23. Januar 2013)

Betrifft: Zulassung von gentechnisch verändertem Fisch

Die USA stehen, wie aus Medienberichten bekannt wurde, kurz davor der Welt zum ersten Mal gentechnisch veränderten Fisch zu präsentieren — nämlich einen mutierten Lachs, der Wildlachsbestände vernichten, aber auch eine Gefahr für die menschliche Gesundheit darstellen könnte. So hat ein US Unternehmen die DNA des Lachses dahin gehend manipuliert, dass der mutierte Fisch, auch „Frankenfisch“ genannt, angeblich doppelt so schnell wächst wie echter Lachs. Dieser Mutant der Biotech-Industrie ist deshalb besonders gefährlich, weil er den Weg für andere transgene Fisch‐ und Fleischsorten ebnen würde. Die Biotech-Industrie hat bereits große Summen in das Lobbying investiert, damit Regierungen ihre gentechnisch veränderten Zuchtprodukte zulassen. Die langfristigen Gesundheitsfolgen durch Verzehr dieses Mutanten sind bislang noch unbekannt. Überdies könnten diese Superlachse ganze Bestände ihrer wilden Artgenossen auslöschen, wenn einige dieser Tiere oder deren Eier in die freie Wildbahn gelangen. Der Mutantenfisch ist zudem angeblich kaum von echtem Lachs zu unterscheiden.

1.

Wie beurteilt die Kommission diese Vorhaben in den USA? Teilt die Kommission die Bedenken gegen mutierten Lachs?

2.

Wie kann sichergestellt werden, dass nicht alleine die Finanzkraft der Biotech-Unternehmen bestimmt, was wir in Zukunft essen werden?

3.

Soll Fisch auch in Zukunft noch den gesunden bzw. unbedenklich zu konsumierenden Nahrungsmitteln angehören? Was denkt die Kommission darüber, und wie gedenkt man gegebenenfalls dafür Sorge zu tragen?

4.

Der Verzehr des besagten Fisches soll jetzt für unbedenklich erklärt werden — auf der Grundlage von Studien, die von demselben Unternehmen finanziert wurden, das auch das gentechnisch veränderte Tier entwickelt hat. Kann nach Ansicht der Kommission bei einem solchen Interessenskonflikt den Studien — auch nur rudimentär — Vertrauen geschenkt werden?

Antwort von Herrn Borg im Namen der Kommission

(11. März 2013)

1., 2., 3. Die Europäische Union hat im Rahmen von Rechtsvorschriften eigene strenge Sicherheitskriterien zur Risikobewertung und Zulassung von GVO festgelegt, die vollkommen unabhängig von den Zulassungsverfahren von Drittstaaten sind. Erst nachdem diese strenge Risikobewertung positiv ausgefallen ist, können GVO in die EU importiert und dort verwendet werden. Die Vorschriften über GVO stellen darüber hinaus auch sicher, dass die Verbraucher umfassend über das Vorhandensein von GVO in Futtermitteln und Lebensmitteln informiert sind, so dass sie eine bewusste Kaufentscheidung treffen können.

Im speziellen Fall von genetisch veränderten Tieren entwickelt die Europäische Behörde für Lebensmittelsicherheit derzeit einen Leitlinienentwurf zur Bewertung von Umweltrisiken genetisch veränderter Tiere (22), einschließlich Fische, sowie ihrer Auswirkungen auf die Gesundheit von Mensch und Tier, um sich auf mögliche Anträge auf Marktzulassung in der Europäischen Union vorzubereiten.

Die US Food and Drug Administration hat einen Entwurf der Umweltverträglichkeitsprüfung ausgearbeitet, der sich auf ihre Risikobewertung des „AquAdvatage Salmon“, eines genetisch veränderten Lachses, bezieht und zur öffentlichen Konsultation ausgeschrieben wurde. Die Kommission wird innerhalb eines bestimmten Zeitraums Stellung dazu beziehen und Gewähr verlangen, dass die Lieferkettenkontrollen für die Ausfuhren von Fisch in die Europäische Union durchgeführt und geeignete Testverfahren verfügbar sind, damit sichergestellt wird, dass nur zugelassener Lachs in die EU importiert werden kann.

4.

Innere Angelegenheiten von Drittstaaten kommentiert die Kommission grundsätzlich nicht.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000676/13

to the Commission

Franz Obermayr (NI)

(23 January 2013)

Subject: Authorisation for genetically modified fish

Media reports have revealed that the USA is on the verge of presenting the world for the first time with a genetically modified fish. This is a mutated salmon, which has the potential not only to devastate wild salmon stocks, but also to endanger human health. An American firm has manipulated the salmon’s DNA in such a way that the mutated fish, also called the ‘Frankenfish’, allegedly grows twice as fast as a real salmon. This biotech industry mutant is particularly dangerous because it would smooth the way for other transgenic fish and meat varieties. The biotech industry has already invested a huge amount in lobbying governments to approve their genetically modified breeding schemes. The long-term repercussions on our health of eating these mutants are still not known. What is more, these super-salmon could wipe out whole stocks of their wild cousins if one of them or their eggs were to escape into the wild. Furthermore it seems there is practically no difference in appearance between the mutant fish and a real salmon.

1.

What is the Commission’s opinion of these plans in the USA? Does the Commission share the misgivings regarding mutated salmon?

2.

What guarantee is there that what we will be eating in the future will not be solely decided by the biotech industry’s financial power?

3.

Will fish continue in the future to be regarded as a healthy foodstuff, or at least one which is safe to eat? What does the Commission think and how, should this be necessary, does it propose to ensure that this is so?

4.

It is now proposed that the aforementioned fish be declared safe to eat — on the basis of studies funded by the very firms that developed the genetically modified animal in the first place. In the light of this conflict of interest, does the Commission consider that any trust at all can be placed in these studies?

Answer given by Mr Borg on behalf of the Commission

(11 March 2013)

1, 2, 3. The European Union has set in law its own strict safety criteria for risk assessment and authorisation of GMOs, which are fully independent of third countries' authorisation procedures. No GMO can be imported and used in the EU if it has not been granted an authorisation first, after successful completion of this stringent risk assessment process. Furthermore, the GMO legislation ensures that consumers are comprehensively informed on the presence of GMOs in feed and food, allowing them to make an informed purchasing choice.

As regards GM animals in particular, in order to prepare for possible future applications of this kind, the European Food Safety Authority is developing guidance on human and animal health and environmental risk assessment for GM animals (23), including fish.

The US Food and Drug Administration has issued for public comment a draft environmental assessment related to the agency’s review of an application concerning AquAdvantage Salmon, a genetically engineered Atlantic salmon. The Commission will comment within the specified period requesting assurances on the supply chain controls for fish exports to the European Union, and the availability of appropriate detection methods, to ensure that no unauthorised salmon can be imported to the EU.

4.

It is Commission policy not to comment on the internal affairs of third countries.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000677/13

to the Commission

Marina Yannakoudakis (ECR)

(23 January 2013)

Subject: World Economic Forum Annual Meeting in Davos, 22-26 January 2013

1.

Can the Commission please confirm which Commissioners and how many Commission staff attended the World Economic Forum Annual Meeting in Davos on 22-26 January 2013?

2.

Could the Commission please provide details of all the mission costs of the Commissioners and Commission staff who attended the meeting in Davos?

3.

Can the Commission also please confirm the means of transport by which the Commissioners travelled to Davos, and if it was by chartered aircraft what was the justification for choosing this method over a scheduled flight?

Answer given by Mr Šefčovič on behalf of the Commission

(12 March 2013)

In total, 19 people travelled to Davos for the World Economic Forum Annual Meeting in January 2013; six of which are Commissioners.

The average cost of these missions was EUR 2.153, which includes travel by commercial airlines, accommodation costs and daily subsistence allowances. In addition, some missions were not only to Davos and back (more destinations combined) resulting in a higher cost.

There were no chartered aircrafts used for these missions.

(Nederlandse versie)

Vraag met verzoek om schriftelijk antwoord E-000678/13

aan de Commissie

Laurence J. A. J. Stassen (NI)

(23 januari 2013)

Betreft: Europees systeem van emissiehandel

De Europese Commissie heeft aangegeven het aantal emissierechten te willen verminderen om zo kunstmatig de prijs van de emissierechten te verhogen. Al een jaar geleden hebben analisten van de Zwitserse bank UBS geconstateerd dat het emissiehandelssysteem (ETS) gewoonweg niet werkt. De EU wil bepalen hoeveel CO2 bedrijven in de toekomst mogen uitstoten. Niemand weet echter hoe de economie zich in de toekomst zal ontwikkelen (24). Het bedrijfsleven lijdt onder het ETS en degene die het meeste profiteren van het systeem zijn de financiële diensten (25). Het ETS is volgens de CEO van EON „a joke the whole world laughs about” (26). In 1997 was de EU nog tegen een systeem van handel in emissierechten (27).

1.

Wat waren de redenen van de Commissie om af te wijken van haar oorspronkelijke positie ten opzichte van handel in emissierechten?

2.

Is de Commissie het met de PVV eens dat het de Commissie zou sieren om zich erbij neer te leggen dat het ETS niet werkt en ook in de toekomst niet zal werken?

Antwoord van mevrouw Hedegaard namens de Commissie

(13 maart 2013)

De Commissie heeft twee zaken voorgesteld, namelijk:

1)om het veilingschema van de EU-regeling voor de handel in emissierechten (ETS) zodanig te wijzigen dat in de eerdere jaren van fase 3 minder emissierechten worden geveild, en in latere jaren (2013-2020) (28) meer. Het gaat hierbij niet om het verminderen van de emissierechten in fase 3, het gaat erom op korte  termijn iets te doen aan de grote en snel groeiende wanverhouding tussen vraag en aanbod in het EU-ETS. Naar verwachting zal dit geen dramatische gevolgen hebben voor de koolstofprijs, maar eerder stabiliserend werken op de korte  termijn.

2)om alternatieven te overwegen voor de aanpak van de meer structurele problemen van het systeem, die worden veroorzaakt door het — in wezen vanwege de crisis opgebouwde — overschot aan emissierechten. De discussie over potentiële automatische stabiliseringsmechanismen die rekening houden met onzekerheden zoals in de vraag genoemd, maakt deel uit van deze overwegingen. Er is geen reden waarom het niet mogelijk zou zijn het ETS in de toekomst beter te laten werken, als de politieke wil daartoe er is.

Wat betreft de vragen van het geachte Parlementslid verwijst de Commissie het geachte Parlementslid naar haar antwoord op de eerdere schriftelijke vraag E-009943/2012 (29) .

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000678/13

to the Commission

Laurence J.A.J. Stassen (NI)

(23 January 2013)

Subject: European Emissions Trading System

The Commission has stated that it wishes to reduce the number of emission certificates in order to artificially raise their price. A year ago, analysts at the Swiss bank UBS already concluded that the Emissions Trading System (ETS) was simply not working. The EU wishes to determine how much CO2 businesses may emit in future. However, no one knows how the economy will develop in future (30). Industry is suffering from the ETS while it is financial services that derive the greatest benefit from the system (31).According to the CEO of EON, the ETS is ‘a joke the whole world laughs about’ (32). In 1997 the EU was still against an emissions trading system (33).

1.

Why has the Commission decided to abandon its original position on emissions trading?

2.

Does the Commission agree with the PVV that it would be to the Commission’s credit if it accepted that the ETS is not working and will not work in future either?

Answer given by Ms Hedegaard on behalf of the Commission

(13 March 2013)

What the Commission has proposed is two things:

changing the timing of auctions for the EU Emissions Trading System (ETS), auctioning fewer allowances in early years and more in later years of phase 3 (2013-2020) (34). This is not about reducing the number of allowances in phase 3, but about addressing the large and rapidly growing supply-demand imbalance in the EU ETS in the short-term. It is not expected to have dramatic effects on the carbon price, but rather to have a stabilising effect in the short term;

to debate options for addressing the more structural problems of the system caused by the surplus of allowances built up in essence due to the crisis. To this debate belongs the discussion about potential automatic stabilisation mechanisms for taking into account uncertainties such as those referred to in the question. There is no reason why it should not be possible to make the ETS work better in the future if there is political will to do so.

In relation to Honourable Member’s questions, the Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to her previous Written Question E-009943/2012 (35).

(Nederlandse versie)

Vraag met verzoek om schriftelijk antwoord E-000679/13

aan de Commissie

Laurence J. A. J. Stassen (NI)

(23 januari 2013)

Betreft: Europees klimaatbeleid

De beantwoording van mijn eerdere vraag (E-009936/2012) geeft aanleiding tot de volgende vervolgvragen:

In het artikel van Stefan Boeters en Joris Koornneef genaamd Supply of renewable energy sources and the cost of EU climate policy  (36) geven de schrijvers aan dat de extra kosten van de „20 % hernieuwbare energie”-doelstelling, 6 % hoger zijn dan een beleid zonder deze doelstelling. De schrijvers zijn kritisch over de coëxistentie van subsidies voor hernieuwbare energie en bestaande belastingen op fossiele brandstoffen en stellen dat de 20 %-doelstelling voor hernieuwbare energie kan leiden tot aanzienlijk hogere sociale lasten. Het argument van de extra kosten van het EU klimaatbeleid wordt ook ondersteund door andere auteurs (37).

1.

Is de Commissie bekend met de artikelen

Supply of renewable energy sources and the cost of EU climate policy en EU climate policy up to 2020

: An economic impact assessment? Zo ja, hoe reageert de Commissie op de bevindingen van dit wetenschappelijk onderzoek?

2.

In het artikel wordt aangegeven dat vermindering van uitstoot van broeikasgassen ook kan worden bereikt door een efficiënter gebruik van fossiele brandstoffen en door het switchen van steenkool naar gas. Is de Commissie het met de PVV eens dat deze methodes in acht moeten worden genomen alvorens over te gaan op dure en onrendabele investeringen in wind- en zonne-energie? Zo neen, waarom niet?

3.

Door subsidiëring van onder andere windenergie forceert de EU de markt om meer van deze vorm van energie gebruik te maken dan in werkelijkheid efficiënt zou zijn. Is de Commissie het met de PVV eens dat subsidiëring van windenergie in strijd is met EU doelstellingen betreffende energie-efficiëntie? Zo neen, waarom niet?

Antwoord van de heer Oettinger namens de Commissie

(15 maart 2013)

De Commissie is bekend met het rapport dat in de vraag wordt vermeld. Het rapport bevestigt de analyse (38) van de Commissie en het standaardmodelresultaat dat elke toevoeging aan een marktconform en kostenminimaliserend economisch instrument om de uitstoot van broeikasgassen te verminderen, een „verlies van welvaart” creëert.

Waar het in dit debat om gaat is dat het EU-beleid inzake energie uit hernieuwbare bronnen niet alleen bijdraagt tot het klimaatbeleid, maar dat het eveneens de energievoorzieningszekerheid van de EU verbetert en diversifieert. De investeringen in hernieuwbare energie in de EU hebben ook bijgedragen aan de creatie van een mondiale markt voor hernieuwbare energie en hebben de technologiekosten in die mate doen dalen dat landwind‐ en zonne-energie nu in sommige markten op rendabele wijze kunnen worden ingezet. Een en ander is dus niet in strijd met het beleid en de doelstellingen inzake energie-efficiëntie.

In sommige gevallen blijken de instrumenten die worden gebruikt om de doelstellingen op het gebied van hernieuwbare energie te bereiken, niet efficiënt te zijn. Het gaat dan met name om bepaalde nationale steunregelingen voor hernieuwbare energie. Om die reden werkt de Commissie aan richtsnoeren voor deze regelingen om ervoor te zorgen dat de doelstellingen op het gebied van hernieuwbare energie zo kostenefficiënt mogelijk worden bereikt.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000679/13

to the Commission

Laurence J.A.J. Stassen (NI)

(23 January 2013)

Subject: European climate policy

The answer to my previous question (E-009936/2012) gives rise to the following further questions:

In the article by Stefan Boeters and Joris Koornneef, Supply of renewable energy sources and the cost of EU climate policy  (39), the authors indicate that the excess costs of the ‘20% renewable energy’ target are 6% as compared with the costs of a policy without this target. The authors criticise the coexistence of subsidies for renewable energy with existing taxes on fossil fuels, and state that the 20% target for renewable energy could lead to substantially greater social costs. The argument concerning the excess costs of the EU’s climate policy is also supported by other authors. (40)

1.

Is the Commission familiar with the articles

Supply of renewable energy sources and the cost of EU climate policy

and

EU climate policy up to 2020: An economic impact assessment

? If so, what is the Commission’s response to the findings of this research?

2.

The article indicates that greenhouse gas emissions can also be reduced by using fossil fuels more efficiently and switching from coal to gas. Does the Commission agree with the PVV that these methods should be taken into account before resorting to costly and unviable investments in wind power and solar energy? If not, why not?

3.

By subsidising wind power (

inter alia

), the EU compels the market to make more use of this form of energy than is genuinely efficient. Does the Commission agree with the PVV that subsidies for wind power run counter to EU energy efficiency targets? If not, why not?

Answer given by Mr Oettinger on behalf of the Commission

(15 March 2013)

The Commission is familiar with the report mentioned in the question. The report confirms Commission analysis (41) and the standard modelling result that any addition to a market based, cost minimising economic instrument to reduce GHG emissions creates a ‘welfare loss’.

The key point in this debate is that EU Renewable energy policy contributes to climate policy but also diversifies and improves the security of EU energy supplies. The renewable energy investments made in the EU have also helped to create a global renewable energy market and driven down technology costs in such a way that onshore wind and Photovoltaic can now be deployed viably in some markets. As such, it does not contradict energy efficiency policy and targets.

There are instances where the instruments used to achieve the renewable energy targets have not been efficient, in particular certain national renewable energy support schemes. It is for this reason that the Commission is preparing guidance on such schemes, to ensure that renewable energy targets are reached as cost effectively as possible.

(Versione italiana)

Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-000680/13

al Consiglio

Francesco Enrico Speroni (EFD)

(23 gennaio 2013)

Oggetto: Politica di rigore finanziario e approccio americano

Negli USA, per fronteggiare la crisi e stimolare l'economia e l'occupazione, si è raggiunto un accordo politico teso ad aumentare il limite del debito svincolandolo dai tagli alla spesa. Maggiori risorse finanziarie saranno così destinate a finanziare opere, progetti e spese che si suppone saranno utili ad allontanare gli effetti della crisi ed a rilanciare i consumi e l'economia americana. In Europa, al contrario, si prosegue nell'attuare una severa politica di rigore finanziario e di tagli alla spesa che sembra peggiorare le condizioni dell'economia, far perdere PIL ed aumentare la disoccupazione.

1.

Non ritiene il Consiglio che il perseguimento di una tale politica di rigore possa produrre effetti deleteri per l'economia europea?

2.

Come si spiega il Consiglio che il medesimo problema venga affrontato dal sistema americano in modo diametralmente opposto rispetto a quello europeo?

3.

Con quali motivazioni si esclude che una maggiore spesa ed un innalzamento del tetto del debito possano avere conseguenze positive sull'economia europea?

4.

Non ritiene il Consiglio che il semplice vantaggio di alcuni Stati membri non sia una motivazione sufficiente per perseverare in una politica di rigore dimostratasi sinora fallimentare?

Risposta

(15 aprile 2013)

Nelle conclusioni del 12 febbraio 2013, Il Consiglio ha sottolineato che permane la gravità della sfida in termini di crescita e di debito a cui è confrontata l'economia dell'UE e che, nell’attuale congiuntura, resta assolutamente prioritario migliorare la fiducia e rilanciare la crescita economica, garantendo la sostenibilità del debito e incrementando la competitività, con la creazione di condizioni favorevoli alla crescita sostenibile e all'occupazione nel più lungo periodo,

Il Consiglio ha inoltre sottolineato che un prerequisito della crescita e dell'aggiustamento consiste nel proseguire sulla via del risanamento di bilancio e delle riforme strutturali e invertire la frammentazione finanziaria, nel migliorare le condizioni di finanziamento per gli investitori soprattutto nei paesi vulnerabili e nel favorire l’afflusso e un’allocazione efficiente del capitale a sostegno dell’aggiustamento. A tal fine il Consiglio europeo del dicembre 2012 ha convenuto di mantenere gli attuali sforzi tesi a rafforzare la governance dell'UEM fondata su una maggiore integrazione e una solidarietà rafforzata nella zona euro. Tale processo sarà avviato con il completamento, il rafforzamento e l'attuazione della nuova governance economica rafforzata, nonché con l'adozione del meccanismo di vigilanza unico e delle nuove norme sul risanamento e la risoluzione delle crisi nel settore bancario e sulle garanzie dei depositi. Ciò sarà reso possibile dall'istituzione di un meccanismo di risoluzione unico.

Inoltre il Consiglio ha sottolineato che finanze pubbliche sane e sostenibili sono un prerequisito essenziale per la fiducia dei mercati e la stabilità economica e, di conseguenza, per la crescita. L'aggiustamento di bilancio deve continuare sulla via di una strategia di risanamento differenziato favorevole alla crescita, anche in considerazione di elevati livelli di debito e di sfide a medio e lungo termine per le finanze pubbliche.

Il Consiglio non ha discusso le altre questioni sollevate dall'onorevole parlamentare.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000680/13

to the Council

Francesco Enrico Speroni (EFD)

(23 January 2013)

Subject: Financial austerity policy and the American approach

To cope with the crisis and boost its economy and employment, political agreement has been reached in the USA to raise the debt ceiling without reference to spending cuts. More funds will be available therefore to finance works, projects and purchasing which, it is assumed, will help ward off the effects of the crisis and kick-start consumption and the American economy. The European Union, on the other hand, is pursuing a rigorous policy of financial austerity and spending cuts, which appears to be producing even worse economic conditions, falling GDP and rising unemployment.

1.

Does the Council not feel that sticking to this austerity policy may be detrimental to the EU economy?

2.

How does the Council explain the fact that the USA is tackling the very same problem in a diametrically opposed way to the EU?

3.

What are the grounds for dismissing the idea that higher spending and raising the debt ceiling may have positive repercussions on the EU economy?

4.

While some Member States may benefit from the financial austerity policy surely this alone does not constitute sufficient grounds for persevering with this policy which has thus far proved to be disastrous. Does the Council agree?

Reply

(15 April 2013)

In its conclusions of 12 February 2013, the Council emphasised that the growth and debt challenges confronting the EU economy continued to be serious, and that improving confidence and reviving economic growth, ensuring debt sustainability and improving competitiveness, while creating conditions for sustainable growth and jobs in the longer-term, were the main priorities at the current juncture.

The Council also underlined that a prerequisite for growth and adjustment was to continue on the path of fiscal consolidation and structural reforms and to reverse financial fragmentation, to improve financing conditions for investors, especially in the vulnerable countries, and to encourage the inflow and efficient allocation of capital to support adjustment. To this end, the European Council in December 2012 agreed to maintain ongoing efforts to strengthen EMU governance based on deeper integration and reinforced solidarity in the euro area. This process will begin with the completion, strengthening and implementation of the new enhanced economic governance, as well as the adoption of the Single Supervisory Mechanism and of the new rules on recovery and resolution and on deposit guarantees. This will be made possible by the establishment of a single resolution mechanism.

Furthermore, the Council emphasised that sound and sustainable public finances were an essential prerequisite for market confidence and macroeconomic stability, and hence for growth. Fiscal adjustment had to continue along the path of a differentiated growth‐ friendly consolidation strategy, also in view of high debt levels and medium‐ to long ‐term challenges to public finances.

The Council has not discussed the other issues raised by the Honourable Member.

(Versione italiana)

Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-000681/13

alla Commissione

Francesco Enrico Speroni (EFD)

(23 gennaio 2013)

Oggetto: Politica di rigore finanziario e approccio americano

Negli USA, per fronteggiare la crisi e stimolare l'economia e l'occupazione, si è raggiunto un accordo politico teso ad aumentare il limite del debito svincolandolo dai tagli alla spesa. Maggiori risorse finanziarie saranno così destinate a finanziare opere, progetti e spese che si suppone saranno utili ad allontanare gli effetti della crisi ed a rilanciare i consumi e l'economia americana. In Europa, al contrario, si prosegue nell'attuare una severa politica di rigore finanziario e di tagli alla spesa che sembra peggiorare le condizioni dell'economia, far perdere PIL ed aumentare la disoccupazione. L'interrogante ritiene che la principale motivazione di tale rigore stia nella volontà di alcuni Stati membri dell'UE che, maggiormente esposti per l'acquisto di titoli di Stato di paesi con minore liquidità, vogliono al più presto rientrare da una tale posizione.

1.

Non ritiene la Commissione che il perseguimento di una tale politica di rigore possa produrre effetti deleteri per l'economia europea?

2.

Come si spiega la Commissione che il medesimo problema venga affrontato dal sistema americano in modo diametralmente opposto rispetto a quello europeo?

3.

Con quali motivazioni si esclude che una maggiore spesa ed un innalzamento del tetto del debito possano avere conseguenze positive sull'economia europea?

4.

Non ritiene la Commissione che il semplice vantaggio di alcuni Stati membri non sia una motivazione sufficiente per perseverare in una politica di rigore dimostratasi sinora fallimentare?

Risposta di Olli Rehn a nome della Commissione

(28 febbraio 2013)

Nell’analisi annuale della crescita per il 2013, la Commissione promuove un approccio equilibrato per garantire la sostenibilità di bilancio e la stabilità macrofinanziaria e per stimolare una crescita e un’occupazione sostenibili. La Commissione è favorevole a un risanamento di bilancio differenziato, da attuare in modo da ridurre al minimo gli effetti negativi a breve termine sulla crescita. L’analisi annuale della crescita presenta inoltre altre importanti misure necessarie per rafforzare la crescita economica:

per ripristinare l’erogazione di prestiti all’economia reale è indispensabile garantire la stabilità macrofinanziaria e limitare le turbolenze sul mercato del debito sovrano;

a livello microfinanziario è necessario proseguire il risanamento, in particolare nel settore bancario, promuovendo al tempo stesso nuove fonti di finanziamento;

occorrono riforme strutturali per migliorare le condizioni generali per la crescita e rafforzare la capacità di adeguamento delle nostre economie;

le riforme del mercato del lavoro svolgono un ruolo importante;

è necessaria un’amministrazione efficace ed efficiente per mettere in atto le riforme difficili nelle critiche condizioni economiche attuali.

I paesi che rischiano di perdere l’accesso al mercato non dispongono della possibilità di ritardare il risanamento né di aumentare i livelli di debito. Inoltre, oltre una certa soglia, stimata a circa il 90 % del PIL, il livello del debito pubblico tende a diventare un ostacolo per la stessa crescita.

Non vi è pertanto alcuna alternativa plausibile a un risanamento di bilancio favorevole alla crescita, differenziato tra i paesi a seconda della situazione nazionale.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000681/13

to the Commission

Francesco Enrico Speroni (EFD)

(23 January 2013)

Subject: Financial austerity policy and the American approach

To cope with the crisis and boost its economy and employment, political agreement has been reached in the USA to raise the debt ceiling without reference to spending cuts. More funds will be available therefore to finance works, projects and purchasing which, it is assumed, will help ward off the effects of the crisis and kick-start consumption and the American economy. The European Union, on the other hand, is pursuing a rigorous policy of financial austerity and spending cuts, which appears to be producing even worse economic conditions, falling GDP and rising unemployment. In my view, the prime reason for this financial austerity lies in the resolve of certain EU Member States which, owing to their purchase of government bonds from countries with less liquidity, are now heavily exposed and want to withdraw from this position as fast as possible.

1.

Does the Commission not feel that sticking to this austerity policy may be detrimental to the EU economy?

2.

How does the Commission explain the fact that the USA is tackling the very same problem in a diametrically opposed way to the EU?

3.

What are the grounds for dismissing the idea that higher spending and raising the debt ceiling may have positive repercussions on the EU economy?

4.

While some Member States may benefit from the financial austerity policy surely this alone does not constitute sufficient grounds for persevering with this policy which has thus far proved to be disastrous. Does the Commission agree?

Answer given by Mr Rehn on behalf of the Commission

(28 February 2013)

In its Annual Growth Survey (AGS) 2013, the Commission is advocating a balanced approach to ensuring fiscal sustainability, macro-financial stability and to engender sustainable growth and jobs. The Commission supports a differentiated fiscal consolidation to be implemented in such a way that it minimises negative short-term effects on growth. The AGS also sets out other critical steps needed to bolster economic growth:

To restore lending to the real economy, macro-financial stability is indispensable and the turbulences in the sovereign debt market have to be contained;

At micro level, financial repair has to continue in particular in the banking sector, but also new sources of funding have to be promoted;

Structural reforms are necessary to improve framework conditions for growth and to strengthen the adjustment capacity of our economies;

Labour market reforms play an important role;

Efficient and effective public administration is necessary to implement the difficult reforms in the current challenging economic conditions.

For countries at risk of losing market access the option of delaying consolidation, let alone increasing their debt levels, does not exist. Also, beyond a certain threshold estimated at around 90% of GDP, the level of public debt tends to become a drag on growth itself.

There is hence no credible alternative to a growth-friendly fiscal consolidation that is differentiated across countries, depending on their circumstances.

(Versione italiana)

Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-000682/13

alla Commissione (Vicepresidente/Alto Rappresentante)

Fiorello Provera (EFD)

(23 gennaio 2013)

Oggetto: VP/HR — Preoccupazioni riguardanti il progetto di costituzione tunisina

Il 23 gennaio 2013 Human Rights Watch (HRW) ha dichiarato che l'Assemblea nazionale costituente della Tunisia (ANC) dovrebbe modificare una serie di disposizioni contenute nel nuovo progetto di costituzione nazionale, poiché potrebbero rappresentare una minaccia per i diritti umani. Il progetto è stato presentato il 14 dicembre 2012, anche se l'ANC sta ancora procedendo a un dibattito con cittadini e gruppi della società civile per decidere se modificare ulteriormente il testo prima di votare per la sua approvazione.

Sebbene l'ultima versione risulti migliorata sotto diversi aspetti, secondo il vicedirettore di HRW per il Medio Oriente e il Nordafrica resta comunque il fatto che «il testo presenta scappatoie e omissioni che giudici e legislatori potrebbero sfruttare per intaccare i diritti».

A destare particolare preoccupazione è l'articolo 15, che recita: «Le convenzioni internazionali devono essere rispettate, purché non contrarie alla Costituzione». HRW crede che ciò potrebbe consentire a giudici e legislatori di ignorare i trattati in questione, adducendo a pretesto il fatto che sono in contraddizione con la nuova costituzione. Tra le altre disposizioni che suscitano preoccupazione figurano inoltre quelle relative all'immunità giudiziaria per il presidente, garantitagli sia durante il periodo in carica sia successivamente, alla mancanza di garanzie adeguate in materia di indipendenza del potere giudiziario e all'accessibilità alla carica di presidente che, in maniera discriminatoria, è riservata ai soli cittadini di religione musulmana. Quest'ultima disposizione in particolare contraddice l'articolo 5, secondo cui: «Tutti i cittadini beneficiano di uguali diritti e doveri dinanzi alla legge, senza alcuna discriminazione».

Può la Commissione rispondere ai seguenti quesiti:

Può il Vicepresidente/Alto Rappresentante far conoscere la sua posizione in merito al progetto di costituzione tunisina?

Qual è il ruolo dell'UE rispetto alla stesura della costituzione? Quale sostegno, se del caso, sta offrendo ai gruppi della società civile e agli altri gruppi interessati?

Alla luce di queste preoccupanti disposizioni nel progetto di costituzione, quali iniziative intende il Vicepresidente/Alto Rappresentante adottare nel sollevare queste inquietudini con il governo tunisino?

Risposta dell’Alto Rappresentate/Vicepresidente Catherine Ashton a nome della Commissione

(12 marzo 2013)

1. e 3.

L’Alto Rappresentante/Vicepresidente sta seguendo da vicino la stesura della nuova Costituzione. Nell’ambito del dialogo politico e nel pieno rispetto della sovranità tunisina, l'UE ha stabilito numerosi contatti e intrapreso iniziative diplomatiche per esprimere alle autorità e alle diverse forze politiche tunisine il suo punto di vista riguardo alcuni aspetti del progetto di testo che destano preoccupazione.

Oltre al dialogo politico, l’UE fornisce anche strumenti finanziari in diversi settori a sostegno della transizione democratica. Si pensi, ad esempio, alla riforma della giustizia, al supporto tecnico e politico al lavoro dell'Assemblea nazionale costituente tramite il PNUS, a cui partecipa anche il Parlamento europeo e alla prestazione di assistenza tecnica e consulenza attraverso il Consiglio d’Europa.

2.

In linea con le comunicazioni congiunte del 2011 sulla nuova politica europea di vicinato, una delle priorità dell’UE nei confronti della Tunisia consiste nel sostenere la società civile, sempre più parte integrante del nostro dialogo politico. È inoltre in corso un rafforzamento dei finanziamenti destinati a tale priorità, in particolare mediante un programma sottoscritto recentemente del valore di 7 milioni di EUR.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000682/13

to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)

Fiorello Provera (EFD)

(23 January 2013)

Subject: VP/HR — Concerns regarding Tunisia's draft constitution

On 23 January 2013, Human Rights Watch (HRW) stated that the Tunisian National Constituent Assembly (NCA) should amend a series of provisions in the country’s new draft constitution that could threaten human rights. The draft text was released on 14 December 2012, and the NCA is still in a process of deliberation with citizens and civil society groups to decide whether to make further amendments before voting on its adoption.

While the latest text contains many improvements, it remains the case, according to HRW’s deputy director for the Middle East and North Africa, that there are ‘loopholes and omissions in the text that judges and legislators might use to curb rights’.

The article that is causing concern is Article 15, which states: ‘Respect for international conventions is compulsory if they do not contravene this constitution’. HRW believes this could allow judges and legislators to disregard those treaties on the pretext that they contradict the new constitution. Other worrying provisions include the following: judicial immunity for the president while serving and afterwards; inadequate guarantees of the independence of the judiciary; and a discriminatory provision that only a Muslim can become President. This last provision contradicts Article 5, which states: ‘All citizens are equal in rights and obligations before the law, without discrimination of any kind’.

1.

What is the position of the Vice-President/High Representative regarding Tunisia’s draft constitution?

2.

What is the role of the EU regarding the drafting of the constitution? What support, if any, is it giving to civil society groups and other relevant groups?

3.

In light of these troubling provisions in the draft text, what steps is the Vice-President/High Representative prepared to take in raising these concerns with the Tunisian Government?

Answer given by High Representative/Vice-President Ashton on behalf of the Commission

(12 March 2013)

1 and 3. The HR/VP is following closely the drafting of the new Constitution. In the framework of our political dialogue, and in full respect of Tunisian sovereignty, numerous contacts and discrete démarches have taken place to express to the authorities and to the different political forces the EU's point of view on some aspects of the draft text which have raised concern.

In addition to political dialogue, EU financial instruments are also used to support the democratic transition, in different fields, for example the reform of the judicial sector, technical and political support to the work of the National Constituent Assembly (through UNDP and in which the European Parliament is also involved), provision of technical assistance and expertise through the Council of Europe.

2.

In line with 2011 Joint Communications on the new Neighbourhood Policy, support to civil society is a priority of EU engagement with Tunisia; civil society is increasingly involved in our political dialogue and financing to civil society is being reinforced

inter alia

through a recently signed programme worth EUR 7 million.

(English version)

Question for written answer P-000683/13

to the Commission

Chris Davies (ALDE)

(24 January 2013)

Subject: EU measures to combat terrorism and fight crime

The UK Government is undertaking a review to assess whether it should opt out of some 135 EU measures relating to police and judicial cooperation. The Association of Chief Police Officers in the UK has said that only 29 of the measures assist law enforcement in practice.

A significant number of the measures are said to be effectively dormant and unused, while others have been overtaken and subsumed into subsequent agreements.

What steps are being taken by the Commission to review the measures with the aim of streamlining procedures, reducing unnecessary bureaucracy and ensuring that priority is attached to those shown to be of most value to the tasks of combating terrorism and fighting crime?

Answer given by Ms Malmström on behalf of the Commission

(25 February 2013)

The Commission recently launched the Regulatory Fitness and Performance Programme (REFIT) aiming at eliminating unnecessary regulatory cost and ensuring that the body of the EU legislation remains fit for purpose. Even if this exercise is not linked to Protocol 36, one aim of this process is the simplification, codification, recast and consolidation of legal texts as well as reducing the volume of legislation by repealing obsolete provisions, including measures relating to police and judicial cooperation..

(Wersja polska)

Pytanie wymagające odpowiedzi pisemnej P-000685/13

do Komisji (Wiceprzewodniczącej/Wysokiej Przedstawiciel)

Tomasz Piotr Poręba (ECR)

(24 stycznia 2013 r.)

Przedmiot: Wiceprzewodnicząca/Wysoka Przedstawiciel – Kwestia zwrotu wraku prezydenckiego Tu-154 przez Rosję

Według relacji służb prasowych Europejskiej Służby Działań Zewnętrznych, szefowa unijnej dyplomacji na marginesie grudniowego szczytu UE-Rosja w rozmowie z rosyjskim ministrem spraw zagranicznych Siergiejem Ławrowem poruszyła kwestię powrotu do Polski wraku Tu-154M. O interwencję w tej sprawie prosił wcześniej Wiceprzewodniczącą/Wysoką Przedstawiciel minister spraw zagranicznych Polski Radosław Sikorski.

Chcielibyśmy prosić o odpowiedź na następujące pytania:

Jakiej odpowiedzi udzielił minister Ławrow Wiceprzewodniczącej/Wysokiej Przedstawiciel?

Dlaczego kwestia zwrotu wraku została poruszona jedynie w kuluarach spotkania?

Czy w razie braku reakcji Rosji Polska może liczyć, że sprawa ta zostanie wpisana jako pełnoprawny punkt kolejnego szczytu UE-Rosja?

Pytanie wymagające odpowiedzi pisemnej P-000700/13

do Komisji (Wiceprzewodniczącej/Wysokiej Przedstawiciel)

Ryszard Antoni Legutko (ECR)

(24 stycznia 2013 r.)

Przedmiot: Wiceprzewodnicząca/Wysoka Przedstawiciel – Kwestia zwrotu wraku prezydenckiego Tu-154 przez Rosję

Według relacji służb prasowych Europejskiej Służby Działań Zewnętrznych, szefowa unijnej dyplomacji na marginesie grudniowego szczytu UE-Rosja w rozmowie z rosyjskim ministrem spraw zagranicznych Siergiejem Ławrowem poruszyła kwestię powrotu do Polski wraku Tu-154M. O interwencję w tej sprawie prosił wcześniej Wiceprzewodniczącą/Wysoką Przedstawiciel minister spraw zagranicznych Polski Radosław Sikorski.

Chcielibyśmy prosić o odpowiedź na następujące pytania:

Jakiej odpowiedzi udzielił minister Ławrow Wiceprzewodniczącej/Wysokiej Przedstawiciel?

Dlaczego kwestia zwrotu wraku została poruszona jedynie w kuluarach spotkania?

Czy w razie braku reakcji Rosji Polska może liczyć, że sprawa ta zostanie wpisana jako pełnoprawny punkt kolejnego szczytu UE-Rosja?

Wspólna odpowiedź udzielona przez Wysoką Przedstawiciel/Wiceprzewodniczącą Catherine Ashton w imieniu Komisji

(19 marca 2013 r.)

Wysoka Przedstawiciel/Wiceprzewodnicząca Catherine Ashton wyraziła nadzieję, że toczące się rosyjskie dochodzenie zostanie wkrótce zakończone, a szczątki samolotu zostaną przekazane Polsce.

(English version)

Question for written answer P-000685/13

to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)

Tomasz Piotr Poręba (ECR)

(24 January 2013)

Subject: VP/HR — The issue of Russia returning the wreckage of the presidential TU-154 aircraft

According to reports from the European External Action Service’s press service, the EU’s High Representative for Foreign Affairs raised the issue of returning the wreckage of TU‐154M to Poland with the Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs, Sergey Lavrov, on the sidelines of the December 2012 EU‐Russia Summit. The Vice‐President/High Representative had previously been asked to raise the issue by the Polish Minister of Foreign Affairs, Radosław Sikorski.

1.

What was Minister Lavrov’s response to the Vice‐President/High Representative?

2.

Why was the issue of returning the wreckage raised only on the sidelines of the summit?

3.

If Russia fails to respond, can Poland count on the matter being included as a separate point on the agenda of the next EU‐Russia Summit?

Question for written answer P-000700/13

to the Commission

Ryszard Antoni Legutko (ECR)

(24 January 2013)

Subject: VP/HR — The issue of Russia returning the wreckage of the presidential TU-154 aircraft

According to reports from the European External Action Service’s press service, the EU’s High Representative for Foreign Affairs raised the issue of returning the wreckage of TU‐154M to Poland with the Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs, Sergey Lavrov, on the sidelines of the December 2012 EU‐Russia Summit. The Vice‐President/High Representative had previously been asked to raise the issue by the Polish Minister of Foreign Affairs, Radosław Sikorski. 

1.

What was Minister Lavrov’s response to the Vice‐President/High Representative?

2.

Why was the issue of returning the wreckage raised only on the sidelines of the summit?

3.

If Russia fails to respond, can Poland count on the matter being included as a separatepoint on the agenda of the next EU‐Russia Summit?

Joint answer given by High Representative/Vice-President Ashton on behalf of the Commission

(19 March 2013)

The High Representative/Vice-President has expressed the wish that the ongoing Russian investigation will soon be concluded and that the wreckage of the airplane be handed over to Poland.

(Nederlandse versie)

Vraag met verzoek om schriftelijk antwoord E-000686/13

aan de Commissie

Lucas Hartong (NI)

(24 januari 2013)

Betreft: Europees Ontwikkelingsfonds (EOF) tussenrapportage

In de schriftelijke antwoorden van commissaris Piebalgs (kwijtingsprocedure 2011, hoorzitting 18 december 2012) staat op pagina 34/35 vermeld dat de tussenrapportage van het EOF medio 2012 is afgerond. De Commissie meldt dat „den tenuitvoerlegging in diverse regio's langzaam was”, met name in West-Afrika en Zuid-Afrika. In dat kader de volgende vragen:

Van de 597 miljoen euro bestemd voor West-Afrika is ruim 565 miljoen euro ongebruikt. In Zuid-Afrika ongeveer de helft. Kan de Commissie aangeven waarom dat zo is?

Kan de Commissie aan de belastingbetaler uitleggen waarom kennelijk veel te veel fondsen  ter beschikking worden gesteld aan deze landen, terwijl er thuis een economische crisis woedt?

Wat gebeurt er met het deel van de fondsen dat niet aangesproken wordt?

Is de Commissie met de PVV van mening dat onbestede gelden zo spoedig mogelijk dienen  terug te vloeien naar de lidstaten?

Kan de Commissie aangeven welke projecten voor „duurzame energie” in deze landen bijdragen aan de doelstellingen van de Europese lidstaten? Met andere woorden: wat is de aantoonbare toegevoegde „Europese waarde” van deze EU-projecten boven die van de lidstaten?

Antwoord van de heer Piebalgs namens de Commissie

(14 maart 2013)

1.

De financiële middelen voor de regionale programma's in West-Afrika en Zuidelijk Afrika worden gebruikt om de projecten te financieren die tijdens de tussentijdse evaluatie en in het kader van het initiatief „Duurzame energie voor iedereen” werden overeengekomen. De financiering van dit initiatief in de beide regio's en van de resterende activiteiten van het regionale programma in Zuidelijk Afrika werd in 2012 vastgelegd. De projecten voor West‐Afrika bevinden zich op dit moment in de goedkeuringsfase. Om ervoor te zorgen dat de regionale fondsen zijn vastgelegd tegen 31 december 2013, heeft de Commissie in de conclusies van de tussentijdse evaluatie een reeks  termijnen opgenomen. Alle projecten moesten worden vastgesteld tegen 30 september 2012 en de nodige documenten met de volledige beschrijving van de projecten moesten bij de Commissie worden ingediend voor 31 december 2012. Tegen 31 maart 2013 moeten de projecten zijn goedgekeurd. Tot nu toe zijn alle  termijnen in acht genomen.

2.3.4. Deze middelen maken deel uit van het tiende EOF en zijn vastgelegd voor de ACS‐landen voor de periode 2008-2013. De Commissie heeft de nodige stappen ondernomen om de fondsen te gebruiken of over te hevelen naar landen die daar specifiek behoefte aan hebben in 2013. Overeenkomstig het intern akkoord voor het tiende EOF (42) zal de Raad met eenparigheid van stemmen beslissen over het gebruik van de na 31 december 2013 resterende middelen van het tiende EOF.

5.

De instrumenten voor de financiering van projecten op het gebied van hernieuwbare energie in ACS-landen liggen in de lijn van de „Europese consensus inzake ontwikkeling” (43).

Dit was in het bijzonder het geval voor de ACS-EU-Energiefaciliteit alsook voor de steun van de EU aan het initiatief „Duurzame energie voor iedereen” van VN-secretaris-generaal Ban Ki-moon, dat erop gericht is tegen 2030 duurzame energie voor iedereen beschikbaar te maken.

Beide initiatieven sluiten volledig aan bij het beginsel van het bevorderen van duurzame energie.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000686/13

to the Commission

Lucas Hartong (NI)

(24 January 2013)

Subject: European Development Fund (EDF) interim report

On pages 34/35 of Commissioner Piebalgs’ written responses (discharge procedure 2011, hearing of 18 December 2012) it says that the EDF interim report for mid-2012 has been completed. The Commission reports that ‘the implementation in various regions was slow’, especially in West Africa and South Africa. This leads us to the following questions:

Of the 597 million euros earmarked for West Africa over 565 million euros remain unused. In South Africa, about half of the amount remains. Can the Commission explain why?

Can the Commission explain to the taxpayer why too many funds are apparently made available to these countries, while there is an economic crisis raging at home?

What happens to the unused portion of these funds?

Does the Commission agree with the PVV (Dutch Party for Freedom) that these unused funds should flow back to the Member States as quickly as possible?

Can the Commission indicate which projects for ‘renewable energy’ in these countries contribute to the objectives of the EU Member States? In other words, what is the demonstrable added ‘European value’ of the EU projects above those of the Member States?

Answer given by Mr Piebalgs on behalf of the Commission

(14 March 2013)

1.

The financial allocations for the West and Southern Africa regional programmes are being used to fund the projects agreed during the Mid Term Review (MTR) and the Energy for All initiative. The financing for this initiative in both regions and the remainder of the Southern Africa regional programme were committed in 2012. For West Africa, the identified projects are currently going through the approval process. In order to ensure that regional funds are committed by 31 December 2013, the Commission has set a series of deadlines in the MTR conclusions. Therefore, all the projects had to be identified by 30 September 2012 and the necessary documents describing the full design of the projects had to be submitted to the Commission before 31 December 2012 and should be accepted by 31 March 2013. So far all these deadlines have been respected.

2, 3, 4. These funds are part of the 10th EDF and are foreseen for commitment for ACP countries over the period 2008-2013. The Commission has taken the necessary steps to absorb the funds or reallocate them to countries with special needs in the course of 2013. In accordance with the 10th EDF Internal Agreement (44), the decision on the use of the balance of 10th EDF funds after 31 December 2013 shall be taken unanimously by the Council.

5.

Instruments funding renewable energy projects in ACP countries are in line with

5.

Instruments funding renewable energy projects in ACP countries are in line with

 (45)

That was, in particular, the case of the ACP-EU Energy Facility as well as the EU's support to the Sustainable Energy for All initiative launched by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon to meet the goal of universal access to sustainable energy by 2030.

Both initiatives are fully in line with the principle of promoting of renewable energy.

(Nederlandse versie)

Vraag met verzoek om schriftelijk antwoord E-000687/13

aan de Commissie

Lucas Hartong (NI)

(24 januari 2013)

Betreft: Ingehouden betaling Guyana

In de schriftelijke antwoorden van commissaris Piebalgs (2011 kwijtingsprocedure, hoorzitting 18 december 2012) staat op pagina 1 vermeld dat in 2011 een betaling van 16,5 miljoen euro is ingehouden op Guyana.

1.

Betreft het hier Brits-Guyana?

2.

Zo ja, kan de Commissie aangeven welke projecten het hier precies betrof?

3.

Wat was de exacte reden van inhouding van de betalingen?

4.

Wat was de concrete rol van EuropAid in het signaleren van de onregelmatigheden?

5.

Zijn adequate maatregelen genomen om herhaling te voorkomen en zo ja, welke zijn dat? Zo nee, wat garandeert dan de correcte besteding van Europees belastinggeld?

Antwoord van de heer Piebalgs namens de Commissie

(26 maart 2013)

In zijn schriftelijk antwoord op vraag nr. 2 (Kwijting voor het financiële beheer van het Europees Ontwikkelingsfonds (EOF) voor 2011) heeft commissaris Piebalgs verklaard dat in 2011 voor een totaal van 199,6 miljoen euro aan EU-begrotingssteun aan 16 staten in Afrika, het Caribische gebied en de Stille Oceaan (ACS-landen) is ingehouden. 6,5 miljoen euro daarvan (en niet 16,5 miljoen euro zoals het geachte Parlementslid in zijn vraag stelt) was bedoeld voor de voormalige Britse kolonie Guyana.

In het kader van de negende EOF-toewijzing voor Guyana is een programma voor algemene begrotingssteun voor armoedebestrijding ondertekend voor een maximumbedrag van 40,4 miljoen euro. Het doel van dit programma is het ondersteunen van het nationale ontwikkelingsplan van Guyana De operatie bestaat uit vaste en variabele betalingen die afhankelijk zijn van het behalen van specifieke doelstellingen op het gebied van het beheer van overheidsfinanciën, gezondheid en sociale huisvesting.

Een van de belangrijkste criteria om in aanmerking te komen voor begrotingssteun is de inachtneming van de subsidiabiliteitscriteria: het bestaan van een stabiel macro-economisch kader, vooruitgang bij de uitvoering van een nationaal ontwikkelingsbeleid en bij de uitvoering van een hervormingsprogramma voor het beheer van de overheidsfinanciën.

De Commissie heeft in november 2011 besloten dat er onvoldoende vooruitgang is geboekt bij de uitvoering van het tweede strategisch programma voor armoedebestrijding (PRSP) en dat Guyana om die reden niet langer voldeed aan de subsidiabiliteitscriteria op het gebied van nationaal ontwikkelingsbeleid. Bijgevolg is de variabele tranche van 6,5 miljoen EUR ingehouden. Deze middelen zijn  teruggekeerd naar de lidstaten na de afsluiting van het negende EOF.

Alle financiële steun van de Commissie aan Guyana en andere landen wordt beheerd volgens het Financieel Reglement van de Commissie dat het noodzakelijk kader en de nodige waarborgen biedt om ervoor te zorgen dat het geld van de Europese belastingbetaler correct wordt besteed.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000687/13

to the Commission

Lucas Hartong (NI)

(24 January 2013)

Subject: Withholding of payment to Guyana

On page 1 of Commissioner Piebalgs’ written responses (2011 discharge procedure, hearing on 18 December 2012) it says that a payment of 16.5 million euro is being withheld from Guyana.

1.

Are we talking about British Guiana?

2.

If yes, can the Commission indicate which projects they are talking about?

3.

What were the exact reasons for withholding payment?

4.

What was EuropAid’s actual role in identifying irregularities?

5.

Have appropriate measures been adopted to prevent recurrence, and if so, what are they? If not, how will they guarantee that European taxpayers’ money is applied correctly?

Answer given by Mr Piebalgs on behalf of the Commission

(26 March 2013)

In his written response to question No 2 (2011 Discharge on the European Development Fund (EDF)), Commissioner Piebalgs stated that in 2011, EU budget support payments for a total of EUR 199.6 million were withheld in 16 African, Caribbean and Pacific states (ACP), EUR 6.5 million (and not EUR 16.5 million as stated in the Honourable Member’s question) of which for Guyana, the former British colony.

Under the 9th EDF allocation for Guyana, a Poverty Reduction General Budget Support Programme was signed for a maximum amount of EUR 40.4 million. The objective of this programme is to support the Guyanese national development plan. The operation is composed of fixed and variable disbursements, related to the achievement of specific targets in the areas of public financial management, health and social housing.

One of the cornerstones for the provision of Budget Support is respect for the eligibility criteria: existence of a stable macroeconomic framework, progress in the implementation of a national development policy and in the implementation of a Public Financial Management Reform Programme.

In November 2011, the Commission decided that the lack of progress in the implementation of a second generation Poverty Reduction Strategy (PRSP) did not provide sufficient grounds to continue to consider Guyana eligible on the national development policy eligibility criteria. As a result, a variable tranche of EUR 6.5 million was not released. These resources were reverted to the Member States at the closing of the 9th EDF.

All Commission funding to Guyana and other countries is managed under the Commission's Financial Regulation which provides the necessary framework and safeguards to ensure that European taxpayers' money is properly used.

(Nederlandse versie)

Vraag met verzoek om schriftelijk antwoord E-000688/13

aan de Commissie

Judith Sargentini (Verts/ALE)

(24 januari 2013)

Betreft: Vervolgvragen Nederlandse leges voor verblijfsvergunningen

Op 9.10.2012 heeft de Afdeling bestuursrechtspraak van de Raad van State uitgesproken dat de beginselen die het Hof had vastgelegd in het arrest van 26.4.2012 in de zaak Commissie/Nederland (C-508/10) over de hoogte van de leges voor verblijfsvergunningen op grond van richtlijn 2003/109/EG, van overeenkomstige toepassing zijn op de leges voor verblijfsvergunningen op grond van richtlijn 2003/86/EG. Bij brief van 28.11.2012 heeft de Nederlandse regering aan de Tweede Kamer meegedeeld de leges voor gezinshereniging te gaan vaststellen op EUR 225 voor elk toe te laten gezinslid en de leges voor de EG-verblijfsvergunning voor langdurig ingezeten derdelanders die naar aanleiding van het genoemde arrest van het Hof van Justitie waren verlaagd tot EUR 130 te verhogen tot EUR 150. In die brief wordt deze verhoging in verband gebracht met de verlaging van de leges voor gezinshereniging en de verwachting uitgesproken dat de nieuwe legestarieven medio januari 2013 van kracht zullen worden.

De nieuwe leges (EUR 225) zijn bijna zes keer zo hoog als de leges die Unieburgers in Nederland moeten betalen (thans EUR 41,90). In het arrest van 26.4.2012 wees het Hof erop dat de leges die destijds voor de EG verblijfsvergunning voor langdurig ingezeten moesten worden betaald (EUR 201) zeven keer zo hoog waren als de toenmalige leges voor Unieburgers.

1.

Hoe beoordeelt de Commissie het tarief van EUR 225 per gezinslid in het licht van de twee arresten van het Hof van Justitie over de Gezinsherenigingrichtlijn en het antwoord van commissaris Malmström van 24.8.12 op mijn eerdere vragen waarin zij het bedrag van EUR 130 voor verblijfsvergunningen op grond van richtlijn 2003/109/EG als

„niet onevenredig” kwalificeerde (E-007316/2012)?

2.

Voor ieder kind moeten bij toelating de volle leges worden betaald, dus voor overkomst van drie kinderen moet EUR 900 worden betaald. Zijn naar het oordeel van de Commissie dergelijke legesbedragen te verenigen met het doel van richtlijn 2003/86/EG?

3.

Hoe beoordeelt de Commissie dat voor elke verlenging van de verblijfsvergunning volwassenen opnieuw EUR 225 en kinderen EUR 150 moeten betalen?

4.

Hoe beoordeelt de Commissie de verhoging van de leges voor de EG-verblijfsvergunning voor langdurig ingezeten derdelanders naar EUR 150 enkele maanden nadat die leges na het arrest van 26 april 2012 op EUR 130 waren vastgesteld?

5.

Is het naar het oordeel van de Commissie met het doel van richtlijn 2003/109/EG te verenigen dat leges voor verblijfsvergunningen op grond van die richtlijn worden verhoogd in verband met een verlaging van de leges voor verblijfsvergunningen voor gezinshereniging?

Antwoord van mevrouw Malmström namens de Commissie

(21 maart 2013)

De Commissie heft de Nederlandse autoriteiten om toelichting verzocht over het nieuwe legessysteem en de manier waarop deze leges zullen worden toegepast krachtens de nationale wetgeving  ter omzetting van de richtlijn inzake het recht op gezinshereniging.

De dialoog met de Nederlandse autoriteiten is nog aan de gang. Zodra de Commissie over alle gegevens beschikt, kan zij nagaan of er verdere stappen moeten worden ondernomen om de naleving van de EU-wetgeving te garanderen.

Op 1 februari is de Commissie in kennis gesteld van de mogelijke stijging van de leges voor langdurig ingezetenen. Uit de informatie die is verstrekt, kan niet worden afgeleid wanneer de nieuwe leges van toepassing zullen worden.

Op dit moment kan de Commissie de koppeling tussen de verschillende leges nog niet beoordelen aangezien de Nederlandse autoriteiten haar de nodige informatie daarover nog moeten verstrekken.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000688/13

to the Commission

Judith Sargentini (Verts/ALE)

(24 January 2013)

Subject: Further questions regarding Dutch fees for residence permits

On 9 October 2012, the Administrative Jurisdiction Division of the Council of State ruled that the principles which the Court had laid down in the ruling on 26 April 2012 in the Commission/Netherlands case (C-508/10) on the level of fees for residence permits under Directive 2003/109/EC, shall apply to the fees for residence permits under Directive 2003/86/EC. In a letter dated 28 November 2012, the Dutch Government informed the Second Chamber that it would set the fee for family reunification at EUR 225 for each family member coming into the Netherlands, and that it would increase the residence permit fee for long-term residents from third countries to EUR 150 after it was reduced to EUR 130 as a result of the aforementioned Court of Justice ruling. In this letter, the increase was connected to the reduction in fees for family reunification and an expectation was expressed that these new fees would take effect mid-January 2013.

The new fees (EUR 225) are nearly six times higher than those fees imposed on EU citizens in the Netherlands (currently EUR 41). In its ruling dated 26 April 2012, the Court pointed out that the fee at that time for an EU residence permit for a long term resident (EUR 201) was seven times higher than EU citizen fees.

1.

How does the Commission view the rate of EUR 225 per family member in light of the two rulings by the Court of Justice on the Family Reunification Directive and the reply from Commissioner Malmström on 24 August 12 to my earlier questions in which she deemed the amount of EUR 130 for residence permits under Directive 2003/109/EC as

‘not disproportionate’ (E-007316/2012)?

2.

Each child has to pay the full residence fee, so if three children come to the Netherlands, EUR 900 has to be paid. Does the Commission feel that such fee levels can be reconciled with the objectives of Directive 2003/86/EC?

3.

How does the Commission feel about the fact that each residence permit renewal requires adults to pay another EUR 225 and children EUR 150?

4.

What does the Commission think of the residence permit fee increase for long-term residents from third countries to EUR 150, just a few months after the ruling on 26 April 2012 which set it at EUR 130?

5.

Does the Commission agree that the objective of Directive 2003/109/EC is for a fee increase in residence permits under that directive to be linked to a fee reduction for family reunification residence permits?

Answer given by Ms Malmström on behalf of the Commission

(21 March 2013)

The Commission has contacted the Dutch authorities to ask some clarifications on the new system of fees and the way these fees would be applied under the national legislation that has transposed the Family Reunification Directive.

The dialogue with the Dutch authorities is ongoing. When the information at the Commission's disposal will be complete, it will be possible to assess if further steps are necessary to ensure compliance with EC law.

The Commission was informed on 1 February of the possible increase in the fees for long-term residents. From the information provided it is not clear when the new fees will be applied.

The assessment of the link between different fees cannot be made at the moment, as the Dutch authorities still have to provide the Commission with the necessary information in this regard.

(Deutsche Fassung)

Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-001215/13

an die Kommission

Elisabeth Jeggle (PPE)

(6. Februar 2013)

Betrifft: Ungarische Gesetzgebung zu Pacht und Verkauf von Grundstücken

In Ungarn wurden offensichtlich in jüngster Zeit nationale Gesetze erlassen, die den Erwerb und die Pacht von Grundstücken in Ungarn durch nicht-ungarische Staatsbürger, also auch durch EU-Bürger aus anderen Mitgliedstaaten, unterbinden sollen.

1.

Ist diese nationale ungarische Gesetzgebung mit europäischem Recht vereinbar?

2.

Sollte dies nicht der Fall sein, was gedenkt die Kommission zu tun, um Ungarn zur Einhaltung von EU-Recht zu veranlassen?

3.

Innerhalb welchen Zeitrahmens gedenkt die Kommission Maßnahmen einzuleiten, um Ungarn zu einer EU-konformen Gestaltung seiner Gesetze zu bewegen?

4.

Wie sollen sich nicht-ungarische EU-Bürger verhalten, die von diesen Gesetzen betroffen sind?

Gemeinsame Antwort von Herrn Barnier im Namen der Kommission

(25. März 2013)

Die nationalen Rechtsvorschriften über den Erwerb von Land müssen mit dem EU-Recht vereinbar sein, insbesondere mit den Bestimmungen des AEUV über den freien Kapitalverkehr sowie mit der einschlägigen Rechtsprechung des EuGH. Allerdings kann Ungarn aufgrund einer im Beitrittsvertrag verankerten befristeten Ausnahmeregelung und des späteren Beschlusses 2010/792/EU der Kommission bis zum 1. Mai 2014 Verbote in seinen zum Zeitpunkt des Beitritts zur EU geltenden innerstaatlichen Rechtsvorschriften zum Erwerb landwirtschaftlicher Nutzflächen durch nicht in Ungarn ansässige EU-Bürger und alle juristischen Personen beibehalten (46).

Am 17. Dezember 2012 verabschiedete das ungarische Parlament zwei Rechtsakte in diesem Bereich: (1) Die dritte Änderung des Grundgesetzes von Ungarn klassifiziert Rechtsvorschriften über den Erwerb und die Nutzung von Ackerland und Forstflächen als Grundlagengesetze, die einer Zweidrittelmehrheit bedürfen. (2) Das Gesetz Nr. CCXIII von 2012 änderte u. a. das Gesetz Nr. CXLI von 1994 über Ackerland und das Gesetz CXLI von 1997 über das Grundbuchamt mit dem erklärten vorrangigen Ziel, die Rückverfolgbarkeit und Verhinderung illegaler Kaufverträge (sog. „Taschenverträge“) zu verbessern.

Im Rahmen ihrer Beobachtungsaufgaben in diesem Bereich ist die Kommission dabei, die genannten ungarischen Maßnahmen zu prüfen. Hiervon ausgehend wird sie zu gegebener Zeit alle geeigneten und erforderlichen Schritte ergreifen, um zu gewährleisten, dass Ungarn das EU-Recht einschließlich seiner im Beitrittsvertrag verankerten Verpflichtungen vollständig einhält.

Bürger, die der Auffassung sind, dass ihre aus dem EU-Recht erwachsenden Rechte missachtet wurden, können sich mit einer Beschwerde an die Kommission wenden (47).

(Versiunea în limba română)

Întrebarea cu solicitare de răspuns scris E-000689/13

adresată Comisiei

Rareş-Lucian Niculescu (PPE)

(24 ianuarie 2013)

Subiect: Achiziționarea terenurilor agricole de către cetățenii UE

Comisia este rugată să exprime un punct de vedere oficial cu privire la actul normativ aprobat de Parlamentul Republicii Ungare prin care a fost interzisă achiziționarea de terenuri de către cetățenii altor state, în data de 17 decembrie 2012.

Răspuns comun dat de Barnier în numele Comisiei

(25 martie 2013)

Comisia reamintește că legislația națională privind achiziționarea de terenuri trebuie să fie conformă cu legislația UE, în special cu dispozițiile din TFUE privind libera circulație a capitalurilor, precum și cu jurisprudența relevantă a CJUE. Cu toate acestea, o derogare temporară prevăzută în Tratatul de aderare și într-o decizie ulterioară a Comisiei (2010/792/UE) permite Ungariei să mențină, până la 1 mai 2014, în legislația sa națională, interdicțiile existente la momentul aderării la UE privind achiziționarea terenurilor agricole de către cetățenii nerezidenți și de către toate persoanele juridice (48).

La 17 decembrie 2012, Parlamentul ungar a adoptat două acte legislative în acest domeniu: (1) a treia modificare a Legii fundamentale a Ungariei clasifică legislația privind achiziționarea și utilizarea terenurilor arabile și forestiere drept lege organică ce necesită o majoritate de 2/3; (2) Legea CCXIII din 2012 a modificat, printre altele, Legea LV din 1994 privind terenurile arabile și Legea CXLI din 1997 privind registrul de proprietăți imobiliare, cu obiectivul principal de a îmbunătăți trasabilitatea și prevenirea contractelor de vânzări ilegale.

În cadrul activităților sale de monitorizare în acest domeniu, Comisia examinează măsurile ungare menționate mai sus. Pe baza evaluării sale, Comisia va lua, în timp util și dacă este necesar, toate măsurile corespunzătoare pentru a se asigura că Ungaria respectă pe deplin legislația UE, precum și angajamentele consacrate în Tratatul de Aderare.

Cetățenii care consideră că drepturile lor garantate de legislația UE nu au fost respectate pot depune o plângere la Comisie (49).

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000689/13

to the Commission

Rareş-Lucian Niculescu (PPE)

(24 January 2013)

Subject: Acquisition of agricultural land by EU citizens

Can the Commission express an official point of view on the legislative act approved by the Hungarian Parliament on 17 December 2012 that prohibits the acquisition of land by citizens of other states?

Question for written answer E-001215/13

to the Commission

Elisabeth Jeggle (PPE)

(6 February 2013)

Subject: Hungarian legislation on the lease and sale of land

It appears that in Hungary, national laws have been enacted recently to prevent anyone who is not a Hungarian citizen — and thus citizens of other EU Member States — leasing or purchasing land in Hungary.

1.

Is Hungary’s national legislation here compatible with EC law?

2.

If not, what is the Commission proposing to do to ensure Hungary complies with EU legislation?

3.

What is the Commission’s timeframe for introducing measures to persuade Hungary to formulate its laws in line with EU requirements?

4.

What action should non-Hungarian EU citizens affected by these laws take?

Joint answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(25 March 2013)

The Commission recalls that national legislation on the acquisition of land has to comply with EC law, in particular the provisions of the TFEU on the free movement of capital as well as the relevant jurisprudence of the CJEU. However, a temporary derogation enshrined in the Accession Treaty and a subsequent Commission Decision (2010/792/EU) allows Hungary to maintain, until 1 May 2014, prohibitions in its national legislation existing at the time of the accession to the EU concerning the acquisition of agricultural land by non-resident citizens and all legal persons (50).

On 17 December 2012, the Hungarian Parliament adopted two legislative acts in this field: (1) the third amendment of the Fundamental Law of Hungary classifies legislation on the acquisition and use of arable land and forestry as one of the cardinal acts requiring a two-thirds majority; (2) Act CCXIII of 2012 amended i.a. Act LV of 1994 on Arable Land and Act CXLI of 1997 on the Real Estate Registry, with the announced primary aim to improve the traceability and prevention of illegal sales (‘pocket’) contracts.

As part of its monitoring activities in this field, the Commission is scrutinising the abovementioned Hungarian measures. Based on its assessment, the Commission will take, in due time, all appropriate steps if needed to ensure that Hungary fully respects EC law, including its commitments enshrined in the Accession Treaty.

Citizens who feel that their rights under EC law have not been respected can lodge a complaint to the Commission (51).

(Versiunea în limba română)

Întrebarea cu solicitare de răspuns scris E-000690/13

adresată Comisiei

Rareş-Lucian Niculescu (PPE)

(24 ianuarie 2013)

Subiect: Conținutul de proteină din grâu

Cercetătorii de la Universitatea din Göteborg, Suedia, au publicat recent un studiu potrivit căruia creșterea nivelului de dioxid de carbon în atmosferă are un efect negativ asupra conținutului de proteină din grâu și, implicit, afectează calitatea nutritivă a acestei cereale, cu efecte asupra alimentației umane și animale. Comisia este rugată să prezinte un punct de vedere oficial cu privire la această problemă.

Răspuns dat de dna Geoghegan-Quinn în numele Comisiei

(12 martie 2013)

Concluziile cercetătorilor de la Universitatea din Göteborg sunt, într-adevăr, de mare interes și merită o atenție deosebită, în special în contextul politicilor și cercetărilor privind securitatea alimentară.

Comisia nu face evaluări ale publicațiilor din domeniul cercetării și, prin urmare, nu are o poziție oficială privind rezultatele unor studii independente. Totuși, cercetarea în domeniul durabilității și securității alimentare trebuie să ia în considerare efectele și interacțiunile problemelor de mediu. Propunerea Comisiei în privința viitorului program de cercetare Orizont 2020 recunoaște necesitatea promovării de soluții pentru creșterea stabilității și adaptabilității culturilor și animalelor în contextul variabilității mediului.

Mai mult, Comisia sprijină Inițiativa statelor membre de programare comună privind agricultura și schimbările climatice (FACCE) (52), care și-a publicat de curând Agenda strategică privind cercetarea (53). Una dintre temele centrale ale acestei strategii este adaptarea semințelor și a raselor, prin încrucișări convenționale și prin biotehnologie, la combinații noi de mediu și management, de exemplu la agresiuni abiotice sau la niveluri ridicate de CO2.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000690/13

to the Commission

Rareş-Lucian Niculescu (PPE)

(24 January 2013)

Subject: Protein content of wheat

Researchers at the University of Gothenburg, Sweden, have recently published a study, stating that the increasing level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has a negative effect on the protein content of wheat, and, therefore, affects the nutritional quality of the grain, with consequences for human and animal nutrition. Can the Commission present an official point of view on this issue?

Answer given by Ms Geoghegan-Quinn on behalf of the Commission

(12 March 2013)

The findings of researchers at Gothenburg University are indeed very interesting and deserve to be given special attention in particular in the context of policies and research for food security.

The Commission does not undertake assessments of research publications and has therefore no official position on outcomes of independent research. However, sustainability and food security research need to consider the effects and interactions of environmental challenges. The Commission's proposal for the forthcoming Horizon 2020 Research Programme acknowledges the need to promote solutions to increase the stability and adaptability of crops and animals vis-à-vis environmental variability.

Furthermore, the Commission is supporting the Member States' led Joint Programming Initiative on Agriculture and Climate Change (FACCE) (54) which recently published its Strategic Research Agenda (SRA) (55). One of the core themes of this SRA is adapting seeds and breeds through conventional breeding and biotechnology to new combinations of environment and management: e.g. abiotic stresses, elevated CO2.

(Version française)

Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-000691/13

à la Commission

Rareş-Lucian Niculescu (PPE)

(24 janvier 2013)

Objet: Utilisation des pesticides néonicotinoïdes dans l'agriculture

Le Réseau des conservatoires d'abeilles et de pollinisateurs (France) a lancé une campagne contre une classe de pesticides neurotoxiques, les néonicotinoïdes, incriminés pour être à l'origine du déclin des abeilles. Cela vient d'être confirmé par une étude de l'INRA et du CNRS, qui prouve que les néonicotinoïdes désorientent et tuent les abeilles.

Le Réseau demande l'interdiction immédiate de l'utilisation de tous les néonicotinoïdes dans l'agriculture.

La Commission pourrait-elle communiquer au Parlement son point de vue officiel quant à cette demande?

Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-000769/13

à la Commission

Marc Tarabella (S&D)

(25 janvier 2013)

Objet: Pesticide mortel pour les abeilles: le rapport de l'EFSA

Les trois insecticides d'enrobage des semences les plus vendus viennent d'être reconnus toxiques pour les abeilles par l'Autorité européenne de sécurité des aliments (EFSA). Depuis 15 ans, les polémiques n'ont jamais cessé à ce propos, expertises et contre-expertises se sont succédées à un rythme effréné, les apiculteurs ont vu leurs colonies d'abeilles s'effondrer, ils ont alerté les autorités sans relâche, attaqué en justice. Le travail des scientifiques de l'Autorité européenne de sécurité des aliments (EFSA) pourrait cette fois mettre un coup d'arrêt définitif à cette nouvelle génération d'insecticides pour les semences, très prisés du monde agricole. À la demande de la Commission, ces scientifiques ont évalué les risques pour les abeilles de trois insecticides de la famille des néonicotinoïdes: la chlothianidine, l'imidaclopride et le thiametoxame. Les conclusions sont accablantes.

Concernant l'exposition des abeilles via le pollen et le nectar, «seule l'utilisation de ces insecticides sur des cultures n'attirant pas les abeilles présente un risque faible». Des risques aigus sont en revanche identifiés sur des cultures qui les attirent. On pense évidemment au colza et au tournesol. L'exposition des abeilles a lieu aussi via les poussières produites par les graines ou les granulés lors des semis, et surtout via l'exsudation des cultures traitées, qui produit de minuscules gouttelettes d'eau imprégnées du pesticide. «Les études menées sur du maïs traité avec du thiamétoxame démontrent un effet aigu sur les abeilles.»

1.

Vu que pour l'EFSA, la contamination des abeilles est bien réelle, la Commission va-t-elle prendre les décisions qui s'imposent pour interdire définitivement les insecticides d'enrobage des semences?

2.

Les experts de l'EFSA ayant souligné dans le même rapport des lacunes importantes des tests et le manque de données présentées par les industriels dans les demandes d'homologation, la Commission peut-elle garantir que tous les autres pesticides sur le marché répondent aux critères européens?

3.

Autrement dit, peut-elle garantir qu'aucun autre pesticide sur le marché ne met en danger la vie des abeilles et donc l'écosystème dont nous dépendons tous?

Réponse commune donnée par M. Borg au nom de la Commission

(25 mars 2013)

La Commission renvoie les Honorables Parlementaires à ses réponses aux questions écrites E-000450/2013 (56), E-011166/2011 et E-00077/2013.

(Versiunea în limba română)

Întrebarea cu solicitare de răspuns scris E-000691/13

adresată Comisiei

Rareş-Lucian Niculescu (PPE)

(24 ianuarie 2013)

Subiect: Utilizarea pesticidelor neonicotinoide în agricultură

Rețeaua rezervațiilor pentru albine și polenizatori (Franța) a lansat o campanie împotriva unei clase de pesticide neurotoxice, neonicotinoidele, care sunt acuzate că ar fi provocat declinul populațiilor de albine. Această afirmație a fost recent confirmată de un studiu efectuat de INRA și de CNRS, care a demonstrat că neonicotinoidele dezorientează și ucid albinele.

Rețeaua a cerut interzicerea imediată a utilizării tuturor neonicotinoidelor în agricultură.

Ar putea Comisia să comunice Parlamentului punctul său de vedere oficial cu privire la această cerere?

Răspuns comun dat de domnul Borg în numele Comisiei

(25 martie 2013)

Comisia le recomandă domnilor deputați să consulte răspunsul său la întrebările scrise E-000450/2013 (57), E-011166/2011 și E-00077/2013.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000691/13

to the Commission

Rareş-Lucian Niculescu (PPE)

(24 January 2013)

Subject: Use of neonicotinoid pesticides in agriculture

The French-based Réseau des conservatoires d'abeilles et de pollinisateurs [Network of bee and pollinator reserves] has launched a campaign against a class of neurotoxic pesticides, neonicotinoids, which are blamed for causing the decline in bee numbers. That claim has recently been borne out by a study undertaken by the French National Institute for Agricultural Research (INRA) and the French National Centre for Scientific Research (CNRS), which proves that neonicotinoids disorientate and kill bees.

The Network is calling for an immediate ban on the use of all neonicotinoids in agriculture.

Could the Commission inform Parliament of its official position on that call?

Question for written answer E-000769/13

to the Commission

Marc Tarabella (S&D)

(25 January 2013)

Subject: Bee-killing pesticide: the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) report

The three highest-selling seed treatment insecticides have recently been found to be toxic to bees by EFSA. The controversies surrounding this issue have continued unabated for 15 years. Opinions and counter-opinions have come thick and fast. Beekeepers have seen their bee colonies collapse and have been relentlessly alerting the authorities and taking legal action. Now the work of EFSA scientists could, once and for all, spell the end for this new generation of seed insecticides, which are highly prized in the agricultural sector. At the Commission’s request, these scientists have assessed the risks to bees of three neonicotinoid insecticides: clothianidin, imidacloprid and thiamethoxam. The conclusions are damning.

When it comes to bees’ exposure via pollen and nectar, EFSA concludes that these insecticides pose a low risk only if they are used on crops that do not attract bees. However, there are acute risks when they are used on crops that do attract bees, with rape and sunflower being obvious examples. Bees are also exposed via the dust produced by seeds or granules during sowing, and especially via exudation from treated crops, which produces tiny water droplets impregnated with pesticide. EFSA concludes that the studies carried out on maize treated with thiamethoxam show an acute effect on bees.

1.

Given EFSA’s finding that bees really are being contaminated, will the Commission take the decisions necessary to ban seed treatment insecticides once and for all?

2.

Since EFSA’s experts have highlighted in the same report significant shortcomings in the tests carried out and a lack of data presented by manufacturers in type-approval applications, can the Commission guarantee that all the other pesticides on the market meet EU criteria?

3.

In other words, can it guarantee that no other pesticide on the market endangers the lives of bees and hence the ecosystem on which we all depend?

Joint answer given by Mr Borg on behalf of the Commission

(25 March 2013)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Members to its answer to Written Questions E‐000450/2013 (58), E-011166/2011 and E-00077/2013.

(Versiunea în limba română)

Întrebarea cu solicitare de răspuns scris E-000692/13

adresată Comisiei

Rareş-Lucian Niculescu (PPE)

(24 ianuarie 2013)

Subiect: Licitația organizată în România în cadrul Programului European de Ajutorare pentru persoanele defavorizate

În România, licitația pentru furnizarea de alimente în cadrul Programului European de Ajutorare pentru persoanele defavorizate (PEAD) a fost câștigată de o societate comercială din Bulgaria, în condiții care ridică multe semne de întrebare. Astfel, societatea câștigătoare a fost înregistrată la Registrul Comerțului cu numai cinci zile înainte de data licitației. În prezent, societatea în cauză a sistat furnizarea alimentelor, cu toate că a încasat deja o parte din banii aferenți.

Comisia este rugată să precizeze dacă are în vedere verificarea condițiilor în care s-a desfășurat licitația menționată.

Răspuns dat de dl Šemeta în numele Comisiei

(13 martie 2013)

Comisia împărtășește pe deplin preocupările distinsului membru privind posibilele nereguli comise împotriva bugetului UE în oricare dintre statele membre.

Ca răspuns la problemele semnalate, distinsul membru trebuie să aibă în vedere că, în conformitate cu normele generale ale gestiunii partajate care reglementează fondurile agricole, statele membre sunt primele responsabile de punerea în aplicare a măsurilor agricole, de efectuarea de audituri și controale referitoare la acestea, inclusiv de recuperarea sumelor plătite în mod necuvenit. În acest cadru, statele membre au, de asemenea, obligația legală de a transmite Comisiei, într-un anumit termen-limită, informații detaliate privind neregulile detectate.

Programul la care se referă distinsul membru intră în cadrul gestiunii partajate între Direcția Generală Agricultură și Dezvoltare Rurală a Comisiei Europene și autoritățile române competente.

Oficiul European de Luptă Antifraudă (OLAF) poate interveni în cazuri specifice ori de câte ori există suspiciuni suficient de grave de fraudă, corupție sau nereguli grave care prejudiciază bugetul UE. Cu toate acestea, în cazul de față, OLAF a informat Comisia că problema descrisă nu i-a fost transmisă spre examinare. Dacă distinsul membru poate oferi OLAF informații mai detaliate despre caz, OLAF îl va examina și va evalua măsurile care trebuie adoptate în continuare.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000692/13

to the Commission

Rareş-Lucian Niculescu (PPE)

(24 January 2013)

Subject: Tendering process organised in Romania for the European Food Aid Programme for The Most Deprived

In Romania, the tendering process for the supply of food under the European Food Aid Programme for the Most Deprived (PEAD) has been won by a company from Bulgaria, in circumstances that raise many questions. The winning company was registered on the Commercial Register only five days before the tendering date. The company in question has currently stopped supplying food despite already receiving part of the money it was due.

Can the Commission specify whether it intends to verify the conditions under which the aforementioned tendering process took place?

Answer given by Mr Šemeta on behalf of the Commission

(13 March 2013)

The Commission fully shares the Honourable Member's concerns regarding possible irregularities against the EU budget in any Member State.

In response to the issues raised, the Honourable Member will be aware that, under the general rules of shared management which govern Agricultural Funds, Member States are responsible in the first instance for the implementation of agricultural measures, their audit and control, including the recovery of any unduly paid amounts. In this framework the Member States also have a regulatory obligation to transmit detailed information on detected irregularities to the Commission within a certain time limit.

The programme to which the Honourable Member refers falls under the shared management of Directorate General for Agriculture and Rural Development of the European Commission and the competent Romanian authorities.

The European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) may intervene in specific cases whenever there are sufficiently serious suspicions of fraud, corruption or serious irregularities detrimental to the EU budget. However, in this instance, the Commission has been informed by OLAF that the matter described has not been reported to it for examination. If the Honourable Member would provide OLAF with more detailed information about the case, OLAF will examine it and assess the follow up to be given.

(Versiunea în limba română)

Întrebarea cu solicitare de răspuns scris E-000693/13

adresată Comisiei

Rareş-Lucian Niculescu (PPE)

(24 ianuarie 2013)

Subiect: Măsuri pentru prevenirea răspândirii pestei porcine africane

Autoritățile italiene au informat Comisia Europeană că, datorită situației epidemiologice excepționale și riscului ridicat de răspândire a pestei porcine africane din Sardinia (Italia) în alte regiuni, ar fi nevoie de sprijin suplimentar în vederea asigurării punerii în aplicare a măsurilor sanitare prevăzute. Ca urmare, Comisia a arătat că „dacă boala nu este combătută în mod corespunzător în Sardinia, ar putea fi afectată întreaga Uniune Europeană, cu consecințe importante asupra sănătății și situației economice din toate statele membre”. Pentru aceasta, Comisia a anunțat că va aloca în 2013 suma de 1,4 milioane de euro pentru combaterea pestei porcine africane (ASF) pe insula italiană Sardinia.

Comisia este rugată să precizeze dacă intenționează să impună măsuri de limitare a deplasării porcinelor și produselor din carne de porc provenite din Republica Italia.

Răspuns dat de dl Borg în numele Comisiei

(5 martie 2013)

Comisia urmărește cu mare atenție situația din Sardinia în ceea ce privește pesta porcină africană (PPA). Situația epidemiologică este, de asemenea, discutată în mod regulat la reuniunile Comitetului permanent pentru lanțul alimentar și sănătatea animală. Ca urmare a unei creșteri semnificative în 2011 a numărului și amplorii teritoriale a focarelor de pestă porcină africană în șapte din opt provincii din Sardinia, care au afectat și mari exploatații comerciale de porcine, Decizia Comisiei 2005/363/CE (59) privind anumite măsuri de protecție a sănătății animale împotriva PPA în Sardinia a fost modificată pentru a extinde zonele de risc și, prin urmare, restricțiile de circulație la întreaga regiune Sardinia.

În plus, în perioada 11-20 martie 2013, Oficiul Alimentar și Veterinar al Direcției Generale Sănătate și Consumatori a Comisiei va efectua un audit pentru a evalua punerea în aplicare a controalelor de sănătate animală privind pesta porcină africană, precum și funcționarea programului de eradicare a acestei boli în Sardinia. În lumina rezultatelor acestui audit, Comisia poate revizui restricțiile existente stabilite prin Decizia Comisiei 2005/363/CE.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000693/13

to the Commission

Rareş-Lucian Niculescu (PPE)

(24 January 2013)

Subject: Measures to prevent the spread of African Swine Fever

The Italian authorities have informed the European Commission that, due to the exceptional epidemiological situation and the high risk of the spread of African Swine Fever from Sardinia (Italy) to other regions, it would need additional support to ensure the implementation of the stipulated sanitary measures. As a result, the Commission has pointed out that ‘if the disease is not adequately tackled in Sardinia, the whole of the European Union could be affected, with important consequences for the health and the economic situations of all Member States’. This is why the Commission has announced that it will allocate EUR 1.4 million in 2013 to combat African Swine Fever (ASF) on the Italian island of Sardinia.

Can the Commission specify whether it intends to impose measures to restrict the movement of pigs and pork products originating from Italy?

Answer given by Mr Borg on behalf of the Commission

(5 March 2013)

The Commission is following very closely the African swine fever (ASF) situation in Sardinia. The epidemiological situation is also discussed regularly at the meetings of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health. Following a significant increase in numbers and territorial extension of outbreaks of ASF in seven out of eight provinces of Sardinia, affecting also large commercial pig holdings, that occurred in 2011, Commission Decision 2005/363/EC (60) concerning animal health protection measures against ASF in Sardinia was amended to extend the risk areas and therefore the movement restrictions to the whole of the region of Sardinia.

In addition, the Food and Veterinary Office of the Commission’s Health and Consumers Directorate General will carry out an audit to evaluate the implementation of the animal health controls on ASF and the operation of the eradication programme for this disease in Sardinia from 11 to 20 March 2013. In the light of the outcome of this audit, the Commission may review the existing restrictions laid down in Commsion Decision 2005/363/EC.

(Versiunea în limba română)

Întrebarea cu solicitare de răspuns scris E-000694/13

adresată Comisiei

Rareş-Lucian Niculescu (PPE)

(24 ianuarie 2013)

Subiect: Nivelul radioactivității sării importate din Ucraina

Potrivit unor oficiali ai Comisiei Europene citați de presa română, România încalcă normele UE referitoare la controalele asupra importurilor de alimente și de hrană pentru animale. Recent, autoritățile române ar fi fost informate printr-o scrisoare oficială, dar care nu a fost făcută publică, în legătură cu declanșarea procedurii de sancționare.

Potrivit surselor menționate de presă, autoritățile române ar impune controale sistematice și ar cere buletine de analiză privind nivelul radioactivității pentru fiecare vagon de sare din Ucraina și numai ulterior ar încheia formalitățile vamale de import. Prin aceste practici, consideră Comisia, România ar încălca Regulamentul (CE) nr. 882/2004. Comisia este rugată să precizeze ce anume i se impută României în această privință.

Răspuns dat de dl Borg în numele Comisiei

(27 februarie 2013)

Comisia a inițiat o acțiune în constatarea neîndeplinirii obligațiilor împotriva României. Comisia consideră că autoritățile române nu își îndeplinesc obligațiile și împiedică aplicarea corespunzătoare a Regulamentului (CE) nr. 882/2004 privind controalele oficiale (61), întrucât efectuează sistematic controale la import și solicită un buletin de analiză care să ateste că nivelul de contaminare radioactivă respectă anumite limite, ca o condiție pentru importul de sare din Ucraina și Belarus, fără o evaluare adecvată a riscurilor.

Informațiile generale referitoare la deciziile Comisiei privind aplicarea legislației UE, inclusiv privind inițierea acțiunilor în constatarea neîndeplinirii obligațiilor, sunt disponibilă pe site-ul internet Europa (62).

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000694/13

to the Commission

Rareş-Lucian Niculescu (PPE)

(24 January 2013)

Subject: Radioactivity levels of salt imported from Ukraine

According to European Commission officials quoted by the Romanian press, Romania is violating EU rules on import controls of food and animal feed. The Romanian authorities were apparently recently informed of this through an official letter regarding the initiation of enforcement procedures, but this was not made public.

According to sources cited by the press, the Romanian authorities would impose systematic controls and would require radioactivity level analysis reports for each wagon of salt from Ukraine, and only later would conclude the customs import formalities. The Commission considers that, through these practices, Romania would be breaching Regulation (EC) No 882/2004. Can the Commission specify exactly what Romania is being accused of in this respect?

Answer given by Mr Borg on behalf of the Commission

(27 February 2013)

The Commission has started an infringement proceeding as regards Romania. The Commission takes the view that, by systematically carrying out import controls and requiring a certificate of analysis certifying that the radioactive contamination level is within certain limits as a condition for the import of salt from Ukraine and Belarus without a proper risk assessment, the Romanian authorities fail to fulfil their obligations and obstruct the proper application of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 on official controls (63).

General information on Commission decisions on the application of EC law, including the starting of infringement proceedings, is available on the Europa website (64).

(Versiunea în limba română)

Întrebarea cu solicitare de răspuns scris E-000695/13

adresată Comisiei

Rareş-Lucian Niculescu (PPE)

(24 ianuarie 2013)

Subiect: Restricțiile temporare impuse liberei circulații a lucrătorilor români

Restricțiile temporare impuse liberei circulații a lucrătorilor români și bulgari ar trebui anulate în toate statele membre UE începând cu 1.1.2014. În prezent, acestea sunt aplicate total sau parțial de 9 state membre. Un stat membru a anunțat că dorește să găsească soluții pentru prelungirea restricțiilor pentru muncitorii români și bulgari.

Comisia este rugată să precizeze dacă un stat membru poate introduce unilateral restricții pe piața muncii și care sunt mijloacele de acțiune pe care le are în vedere pentru a împiedica o astfel de măsură.

Răspuns dat de dl Andor în numele Comisiei

(21 martie 2013)

Începând cu 1 ianuarie 2014, lucrătorii români și bulgari vor beneficia pe deplin de aplicarea dispozițiilor legislației UE privind libera circulație a lucrătorilor, la fel ca și ceilalți cetățeni ai UE, și statele membre nu vor putea să mențină sau să reinstituie măsuri generale pentru a restricționa accesul lucrătorilor români sau bulgari pe propria lor piață a muncii.

În cazul în care un stat membru ar aplica, după 31 decembrie 2013, măsuri pentru restricționarea accesului la piața muncii pentru lucrătorii români și bulgari, astfel de măsuri ar constitui o încălcare a obligațiilor asumate de acesta în temeiul tratatului, iar Comisia ar reacționa în același mod în care reacționează în raport cu alte încălcări ale dreptului UE.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000695/13

to the Commission

Rareş-Lucian Niculescu (PPE)

(24 January 2013)

Subject: Temporary restrictions imposed on the free movement of Romanian workers

The temporary restrictions imposed on the free movement of Romanian and Bulgarian workers should be lifted in all EU Member States as of 1 January 2014. These are currently being applied fully or partially by nine Member States. One Member State has announced that it wishes to find ways to extend the restrictions on Romanian and Bulgarian workers.

Can the Commission specify whether a Member State can introduce unilateral restrictions on the labour market and what recourse does it have in mind to prevent such measures?

Answer given by Mr Andor on behalf of the Commission

(21 March 2013)

As from 1 January 2014 Bulgarian and Romanian workers will enjoy the full benefit of EC law on free movement of workers in the same way as other EU nationals, and no Member State will be able to maintain or re-introduce general measures to restrict access of Romanian or Bulgarian workers to its labour market.

If a Member State were to take action after 31 December 2013 to restrict access to its labour market by Romanian or Bulgarian workers, such action would infringe its Treaty obligations, and the Commission would react in the same way as it does in relation to other infringements of EC law.

(Versiunea în limba română)

Întrebarea cu solicitare de răspuns scris E-000696/13

adresată Comisiei

Rareş-Lucian Niculescu (PPE)

(24 ianuarie 2013)

Subiect: Tratamentul cu amoxicilină

Cercetătorii de la University of Southampton (Marea Britanie) au realizat recent un studiu, la care au participat peste 2000 de persoane din 12 țări ale UE, cu privire la efectele tratamentului cu amoxicilină. Conform rezultatelor, tratamentul cu amoxicilină nu ameliorează semnificativ simptomele infecțiilor respiratorii, însă poate provoca, în schimb, alte probleme de sănătate, dar și rezistența la medicamente.

Comisia are cunoștință de rezultatele acestui studiu? Are intenția de a propune unele măsuri legislative?

Răspuns dat de dna Geoghegan-Quinn în numele Comisiei

(12 martie 2013)

Comisia este pe deplin conștientă de rezultatele studiului publicat de cercetătorii de la Universitatea din Southampton.

Studiul de bază a făcut parte din proiectul GRACE (65), finanțat prin cel de-al șaselea program-cadru pentru cercetare și dezvoltare tehnologică al UE (PC6, 2002-2006) — domeniul tematic „Științele vieții, genomică și biotehnologii pentru sănătate” — cu suma de 11,5 milioane de euro. La data publicării acestui studiu, Comisia a publicat un articol în care a subliniat importanța acestei lucrări (66).

Medicamentele antimicrobiene precum amoxicilina joacă un rol esențial în protejarea sănătății cetățenilor europeni, iar Comisia face o prioritate din abordarea problemelor asociate cu rezistența la antimicrobiene. Astfel, la 15 noiembrie 2011, Comisia a publicat un plan de acțiune împotriva riscului tot mai mare reprezentat de rezistența la antimicrobiene (67). Acest plan de acțiune cuprinde 12 acțiuni, printre care se numără consolidarea promovării unei utilizări corespunzătoare a antimicrobienelor în toate statele membre, precum și consolidarea cadrului de reglementare referitor la medicamentele de uz veterinar și furajele cu conținut medicamentos. În plus, el cuprinde acțiuni care vizează intensificarea eforturilor de cercetare pentru combaterea rezistenței la antimicrobiene.

Statele membre au acordat autorizații de introducere pe piață a medicamentelor care conțin amoxicilină, ceea ce a generat unele divergențe cu privire la utilizarea aprobată a acestora în UE. Informațiile de referință privind prescrierea produselor care conțin amoxicilină și acid clavulanic comercializate în EU au fost deja armonizate (68) în urma unei proceduri de sesizare inițiate de Comisie (69). Se estimează că în 2013 va fi inițiată o procedură similară având ca obiect medicamentele în compoziția cărora intră doar amoxicilină.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000696/13

to the Commission

Rareş-Lucian Niculescu (PPE)

(24 January 2013)

Subject: Treatment with amoxicillin

Researchers at the University of Southampton (United Kingdom) have recently conducted a study on the effects of treatment with amoxicillin involving over 2 000 people in 12 EU countries. According to the findings, treatment with amoxicillin does not significantly improve the symptoms of respiratory infections, but can instead cause other health issues as well as resistance to drugs.

Is the Commission aware of the findings of this study? Does it intend to propose legislative measures?

Answer given by Ms Geoghegan-Quinn on behalf of the Commission

(12 March 2013)

The Commission is fully aware of the research results that have been published by researchers of the University of Southampton.

The underlying study was part of the GRACE project (70) which was funded with EUR 11.5 million via the Sixth Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development (FP6, 2002-2006) under the ‘Life Sciences, Genomics and Biotechnology for Health’ theme. On the day of publication of this study, the Commission issued a news item to highlight this important work (71).

Antimicrobial drugs such as amoxicillin are crucial to safeguard the health of European citizens, and the Commission gives high priority to address the problems associated with antimicrobial resistance. The Commission has thus issued an action plan against the rising threats from antimicrobial resistance (72) on 15 November 2011. This action plan contains 12 actions including strengthening the promotion of appropriate use of antimicrobials in all Member States, as well as strengthening the regulatory framework on veterinary medicines and on medicated feed. In addition, it contains actions aimed at reinforcing research efforts to combat antimicrobial resistance.

Marketing authorisations for medicinal products containing amoxicillin have been granted by the Member States, what has led to divergencies in their approved use across the EU. The reference prescribing information for products containing amoxicillin and clavulanic acid in the EU has been already harmonised (73) as an outcome of a referral procedure initiated by the Commission (74). A similar procedure for amoxicillin-only medicinal products is expected to start in 2013.

(Versiunea în limba română)

Întrebarea cu solicitare de răspuns scris E-000698/13

adresată Comisiei

Rareş-Lucian Niculescu (PPE)

(24 ianuarie 2013)

Subiect: Utilizarea fondurilor europene de către România în semestrul II al anului 2012

Autoritățile române au demarat o amplă campanie de publicitate televizată privind utilizarea fondurilor europene în România, constând în plata unor spoturi TV care reflectă ipotetice beneficii ale fondurilor structurale și de coeziune. În acest scop, s-a înființat și un site la adresa www.fonduri-ue.ro. Această campanie nu conține elemente de informare cu privire la oportunitățile disponibile cetățenilor sau societăților comerciale de a atrage fonduri UE, fiind o campanie de publicitate pentru Guvernul României. Campania se derulează în proximitatea temporală a alegerilor parlamentare, ridicând astfel unele semne de întrebare.

Având în vedere că rata de absorbție a fondurilor europene în România este cu mult sub așteptările cetățenilor români, că o parte dintre fonduri sunt suspendate din cauza corupției, că accesul la informații cu privire la utilizarea fondurilor UE este precară și anumite informații sunt chiar ascunse beneficiarilor,Comisia este rugată să precizeze:

Dacă are cunoștință care este suma alocată de Guvernul României pentru această campanie?

Dacă consideră că aceasta este o destinație potrivită pentru utilizarea fondurilor europene, în acord cu obiectivele UE de creștere?

Dacă CE încurajează o astfel de utilizare a banilor publici europeni?

Răspuns dat de dl Hahn în numele Comisiei

(13 martie 2013)

Comisia are cunoștință de faptul că planurile de comunicare ale Guvernului României includ campanii de publicitate televizată, dar nu poate face comentarii cu privire la cât de adecvat este momentul ales pentru campania în chestiune. Măsurile de informare și publicitate pentru fiecare program constituie o obligație în cadrul politicii de coeziune și trebuie să respecte dispozițiile reglementărilor din acest domeniu de politică. Activitățile de informare trebuie să respecte strict principiul bunei gestiuni financiare și pe cel al proporționalității.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000698/13

to the Commission

Rareş-Lucian Niculescu (PPE)

(24 January 2013)

Subject: Romania's use of EU funds in the second half of 2012

The Romanian authorities have launched a wide-ranging television advertising campaign on the use of EU funds in Romania, consisting of paying for TV spots that reflect the hypothetical benefits of structural and cohesion funds. A website has also been set up for this purpose at www.fonduri-ue.ro. This campaign does not contain pieces of information on the opportunities available to citizens or companies to attract EU funds as it is an advertising campaign for the Romanian Government. The campaign is running only shortly in advance of parliamentary elections, which raises some questions.

Given that the absorption rate of EU funds in Romania is far below the expectations of Romanian citizens, that part of the funds are suspended because of corruption, that access to information regarding the use of EU funds is precarious and some information is even hidden from the beneficiaries:

Does the Commission know the amount allocated by the Romanian Government to this campaign?

Does the Commission consider that this is an appropriate end use of EU funds in line with EU growth targets?

Does the Commission encourage such use of EU public money?

Answer given by Mr Hahn on behalf of the Commission

(13 March 2013)

The Commission is aware that television advertising campaigns are part of the communication plans of the Romanian government but cannot comment on the appropriateness of the timing of this particular campaign. Information and publicity measures for each programme are an obligation under cohesion policy and have to follow the provisions of cohesion policy regulations. Information activities should observe strict sound financial management and proportionality principles.

(Slovenské znenie)

Otázka na písomné zodpovedanie P-000699/13

Komisii

Anna Záborská (PPE)

(24. januára 2013)

Vec: Kvalita potravín vyrábaných v Poľsku

Potraviny vyrábané v Poľsku a vyvážané do ostatných členských štátov opakovane vyvolávajú medzi európskymi spotrebiteľmi rozhorčenie a obavy, pričom predmetom ich kritiky je nedostatočná kvalita týchto potravín (hydina, ryby a iné druhy mäsa) či skutočnosť, že obsahujú nebezpečné látky, napr. technickú soľ alebo len nedávno odhalený jed na potkany.

1.

Môže Komisia potvrdiť, že kvalita potravín pochádzajúcich z Poľska sa výrazne nelíši od kvality potravín vyrábaných v iných členských štátoch?

2.

Je Komisia presvedčená, že systém monitorovania kvality a bezpečnosti potravín v Poľsku predstavuje dostatočnú ochranu spotrebiteľov v EÚ pred zdravotnými rizikami spôsobenými nízkou kvalitou a kontamináciou potravín baktériami a nebezpečnými látkami?

3.

Je Komisia pripravená pravidelne zverejňovať zoznam členských štátov, v ktorom sa porovná kvalita potravinárskej výroby na základe zistení orgánov zodpovedných za kontrolu potravín [prostredníctvom oznámení v rámci systému rýchleho varovania pre potraviny a krmivá (RASFF)]?

Odpoveď pána Borga v mene Komisie

(18. februára 2013)

Existuje komplexný súbor právnych predpisov na zaistenie bezpečnosti potravín umiestnených na trh v Európskej únii. Nariadenia (ES) č. 178/2002 (75) a (ES) č. 882/2004 (76) sú dvomi hlavnými nástrojmi na dosiahnutie tohto cieľa.

Členské štáty sú zodpovedné za presadzovanie potravinového práva EÚ a prostredníctvom organizovania úradných kontrol overujú, či sú príslušné požiadavky na bezpečnosť zo strany podnikateľských subjektov splnené vo všetkých fázach. Úradné kontroly sa musia vykonávať pravidelne na základe rizika a s vhodnou frekvenciou a musia sa prijať vhodné opatrenia s cieľom odstrániť riziko a zabezpečiť presadzovanie potravinového práva EÚ. Na druhej strane je Európska komisia je zodpovedná za zabezpečenie toho, aby sa právne predpisy EÚ riadne vykonávali v rámci celej EÚ.

1.

Komisia nemá k dispozícii informácie, ktoré naznačujú, že úroveň bezpečnosti potravín pochádzajúcich z Poľska je spravidla podstatne odlišná alebo nižšia ako kvalita potravín pochádzajúcich z iných členských štátov EÚ.

2.

V nedávnom prípade, o ktorom sa zmieňuje vážená pani poslankyňa, umožnil systém oficiálnych kontrol, ktorý zaviedlo Poľsko, príslušným orgánom identifikovať problém, aby urýchlene vydali informácie o možných rizikách prostredníctvom systému rýchleho varovania pre potraviny a krmivá a aby okamžite prijali opatrenia.

3.

Komisia nezhromažďuje informácie o fungovaní členských štátov, pokiaľ ide o kvalitu výroby potravín.

(English version)

Question for written answer P-000699/13

to the Commission

Anna Záborská (PPE)

(24 January 2013)

Subject: Quality of food produced in Poland

Repeatedly, food produced in Poland and exported to other Member States has caused scandals and anxiety among European consumers, and has been accused of being of insufficient quality (chicken, fish, meat) or of containing hazardous substances, such as technical salt or, just recently, rat poison.

1.

Can the Commission confirm that the quality of food originating in Poland does not significantly differ from the food that is produced in other Member States?

2.

In the Commission’s opinion, does the monitoring system for food quality and safety in Poland sufficiently protect consumers in the EU from health risks caused by low quality and contamination of food with bacteria and hazardous substances?

3.

Is the Commission prepared to publish, on a regular basis, a list of Member States comparing quality of food production based on the findings of the food control authorities (RASFF notifications)?

Answer given by Mr Borg on behalf of the Commission

(18 February 2013)

There is a comprehensive body of legislation to ensure the safety of food placed on the market in the European Union. Regulations (EC) No 178/2002 (77) and (EC) No 882/2004 (78) are two of the main tools used in order to achieve this objective.

Member States are responsible for the enforcement of EU food law and verify, through the organisation of official controls, that the relevant safety requirements are fulfilled by business operators at all stages. Official controls must be carried out regularly, on a risk basis, with appropriate frequency and appropriate measures must be taken to eliminate risk and ensure enforcement of EU food law. From its side, the European Commission has the responsibility to ensure that EU legislation is properly implemented across the whole EU.

1.

The Commission is not in possession of information indicating that the level of safety of food originating from Poland is as a rule significantly different or lower than that of food originating from other EU Member States.

2.

In the recent case referred to by the Honourable Member, the official controls system established by Poland has allowed the competent authorities to identify the problem, to promptly issue information about the possible risks through the Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed, and to take immediate action.

3.

The Commission does not collect information on the Member States performances in terms of quality of food production.

(Deutsche Fassung)

Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-000701/13

an die Kommission

Franziska Katharina Brantner (Verts/ALE)

(24. Januar 2013)

Betrifft: Gesetz über strategische Investitionsvorhaben der Republik Kroatien

Am 15. Januar 2013 legte das kroatische Wirtschaftsministerium einen Gesetzentwurf mit dem Titel „Entwurf für ein Gesetz über strategische Investitionsvorhaben in der Republik Kroatien“ (Prijedlog zakona o strateškim investicijskim projektima Republike Hrvatske) vor. Das Ministerium kündigte eine neuntägige öffentliche Konsultation an. Dieser Gesetzesentwurf wirft im Hinblick auf seine Vereinbarkeit mit dem Besitzstand der EU eine Reihe von Fragen auf:

Ist der Entwurf des Gesetzes über strategische Investitionsvorhaben mit dem Besitzstand der Union vereinbar, und zwar insbesondere im Hinblick auf die EU-Wettbewerbspolitik, die Regeln des Binnenmarkts und vor allem die EU-Umweltschutzpolitik?

Bestehen bei dem Gesetzesentwurf Risiken im Hinblick auf Erhaltung und Nachhaltigkeit öffentlicher Güter?

Hat die Kommission die kroatische Regierung in Zusammenhang mit den Beitrittsverhandlungen, den regelmäßigen Fortschrittsberichten und dem umfassenden Monitoring-Bericht über den Stand der Vorbereitungen Kroatiens auf die EU-Mitgliedschaft jemals aufgefordert, einen Entwurf für ein derartiges Gesetz über strategische Investitionen zu erarbeiten?

Gedenkt die Kommission, den Gesetzesentwurf im Zusammenhang mit ihrem für März erwarteten umfassenden Monitoring-Bericht über den Stand der Vorbereitungen Kroatiens auf die EU-Mitgliedschaft zu bewerten?

Welche Schlussfolgerungen zieht die Kommission aus einer kürzlich vorgelegten internen Studie, die ein externer Sachverständiger zu zwölf groß angelegten Investitionsvorhaben Kroatiens und ihrer Vereinbarkeit mit den Regeln und Grundsätzen der Umweltfolgenabschätzung verfasst hat? Haben die kroatischen Behörden die Umweltfolgenabschätzungen ausreichend berücksichtigt?

Unter Bezugnahme auf Frage 5: Welche Lehren wurden gezogen und wie beurteilt die Kommission die Frage, wenn es um groß angelegte und/oder strategische ausländische und nationale Investitionen in Kroatien und die entsprechenden Folgenabschätzungen zu den ökologischen und sozialen Auswirkungen geht? Welche Risiken hat dieser Entwurf eines Gesetzes über strategische Investitionen in Bezug auf Umweltfolgenabschätzungen?

Antwort von Herrn Füle im Namen der Kommission

(26. März 2013)

Die Kommission unterhält einen regelmäßigen Dialog mit Kroatien über die Reformprioritäten und hat in diesem Zusammenhang auch Anmerkungen zum Gesetzentwurf über strategische Investitionsvorhaben abgegeben. Der Gesetzentwurf wurde jedoch noch nicht vom Parlament verabschiedet. Die Kommission wird aufmerksam verfolgen, ob neu eingeführte Rechtsvorschriften mit den EU-Verpflichtungen, auch in Bezug auf Umweltverträglichkeitsprüfungen, konform sind.

Die Kommission hat mehrfach betont, dass Kroatien unbedingt weitere Anreize für Investitionen, die Verbesserung des Unternehmensumfelds und zur Steigerung der Wettbewerbsfähigkeit der kroatischen Wirtschaft geben muss. Sie hat Kroatien jedoch nicht zur Ausarbeitung dieses Gesetzentwurfs aufgefordert.

Der Schwerpunkt des Frühjahrs-Monitoringberichts, des letzten vor dem Beitritt, wird überwiegend auf den Beitrittsvorbereitungen Kroatiens in Bezug auf die Kapitel 8 „Wettbewerb“, 23 „Justiz und Grundrechte“ und 24 „Justiz, Freiheit und Sicherheit“ liegen. Nach dem Beitritt Kroatiens zur EU wird für das Land die gleiche Überwachung wie für alle EU-Mitgliedstaaten gelten, damit gewährleistet ist, dass die nationalen Rechtsvorschriften nicht gegen den Besitzstand der EU verstoßen.

Was schließlich die von der Frau Abgeordneten genannte interne Studie betrifft, so ist die Kommission nicht in der Lage, dazu Anmerkungen und Schlussfolgerungen abzugeben. Die Kommission hat jedoch eine Reihe von Mängeln betreffend die Qualität der Umweltverträglichkeitsprüfungen in Zusammenhang mit Wasservorschriften und Energievorhaben in Kroatien festgestellt. Diese wurden mit den kroatischen Behörden erörtert und die Kommission ist davon überzeugt, dass vor dem Beitrittstermin eine akzeptable Lösung gefunden wird.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000701/13

to the Commission

Franziska Katharina Brantner (Verts/ALE)

(24 January 2013)

Subject: Law on strategic investment projects of the Republic of Croatia

On 15 January 2013 the Croatian Ministry of the Economy published a ‘draft law on strategic investment projects of the Republic of Croatia’ (Prijedlog zakona o strateškim investicijskim projektima Republike Hrvatske). The ministry announced a nine-day public consultation process. This draft law raises a number of questions regarding compatibility with the EU acquis:

Is the draft law on strategic investments in line with the EU acquis, particularly with regard to EU competition policy, internal market rules and, above all, EU policy on environmental protection?

Are there any risks associated with the proposed law with regard to the preservation and sustainability of public goods?

In the context of the accession negotiations, the Regular Progress Reports and the Commission’s Comprehensive Monitoring Report on Croatia’s state of preparedness for EU membership, did the Commission ever ask the Croatian Government to draft such a law on strategic investments?

Will the Commission assess the draft law in the context of its March Comprehensive Monitoring Report on Croatia’s state of preparedness for EU membership?

What is the Commission’s conclusion regarding a recent internal study drafted by an external expert on 12 large-scale investment projects in Croatia and their compliance with environmental impact assessments rules and principles? Have environmental impact assessments been sufficiently taken into account by the Croatian authorities?

In relation to question number 5, what are the lessons learned and what is the Commission’s assessment when it comes to large-scale and/or strategic foreign or national investments in Croatia with regard to environmental and social impact assessments? What risks does this draft law on strategic investments pose with regard to environmental impact assessments?

Answer given by Mr Füle on behalf of the Commission

(26 March 2013)

The Commission maintains a regular dialogue on reform priorities with Croatia and, in this context, also provided comments on the draft law on strategic investment projects. However, the draft law has not yet been adopted by parliament. The Commission will closely monitor that EU obligations, including on environmental impact assessments, are respected by newly introduced legislation.

The Commission has highlighted on several occasions the need for Croatia to further stimulate investments, enhance the business environment, and improve the competitiveness of the Croatian economy. However, the Commission has not asked Croatia to draft such a law.

The Spring Monitoring Report, the last one before accession, will mainly focus on Croatia's accession preparations in Chapters 8 ‘Competition’, 23 ‘Judiciary and Fundamental rights’ and 24 ‘Justice, Freedom and Security’. Following Croatia's accession to the EU, the country will be subject to the same monitoring as all EU Member States, in order to ensure that national laws do not infringe on the EU acquis.

Finally, with regard to the internal study referred to by the Honourable Member, the Commission is not in a position to provide comments or conclusions. However, the Commission has identified a number of shortcomings concerning the quality of environmental impact studies of water regulation and energy projects in Croatia. These have been the subject of discussion with the Croatian authorities and the Commission is confident that an acceptable solution will be in place for the date of accession.

(Versión española)

Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-000702/13

a la Comisión

Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL)

(24 de enero de 2013)

Asunto: Asunto: Falta de transparencia en las decisiones sobre el rescate financiero

El pasado 20 de diciembre de  2012 la Dirección General de Competencia de la Comisión Europea publicó una nota sobre la contribución al programa de asistencia financiera a España. Dicha nota especifica los pasos que tendrán que dar tanto los bancos como las autoridades españolas para recibir finalmente los fondos para la reestructuración bancaria en el país.

La comisión especifica las cantidades que finalmente serán puestas a disposición del sector bancario, que resultan mucho menores de las inicialmente planteadas, así como un profundo análisis de la viabilidad de los bancos estableciendo cuales serán objetivo de la ayuda estatal. Los planes de reestructuración que los bancos españoles deben presentar a la Comisión, órgano garante de la ayuda prestada al sector, deben suponer el fin de las actividades de alto riesgo, transferir al también conocido como « banco malo » los activos más problemáticos, reducir su alcance geográfico y garantizar que su actividad se orienta al crédito minorista y a los préstamos a las PYME.

En la citada nota, se especifica que las decisiones serán publicadas en el sitio web de la Dirección General de Competencia: « Las decisiones de la Comisión aprobando los planes de restructuración del grupo 1 y 2 de bancos serán publicadas una vez que las cuestiones confidenciales hayan sido revisadas por las autoridades españolas y los bancos » . Esta cita supone un condicionamiento en la publicación de una información que debería ser pública y que atañe a todos los contribuyentes europeos y especialmente a propietarios de títulos de deuda subordinada y otros instrumentos similares que serán afectados por las citadas decisiones. Esta cita viola la Directiva 2004/109/CE al incumplir los requisitos de transparencia de cara a los tenedores de los instrumentos anteriormente citados.

El texto supone la introducción de una fuerte condicionalidad al funcionamiento del sector bancario, al menos a la parte «intervenida» del sector, pero carece de información con respecto a diversas cuestiones:

¿Cómo garantizará la Comisión el cumplimiento de la Directiva 2004/109/CE de cara tanto a los tenedores de instrumentos de deuda afectados como a los contribuyentes europeos si las autoridades y bancos españoles filtraran el texto de las decisiones?, ¿qué usos contempla la Comisión para los activos de la Compañía de Gestión de Activos, especialmente los bienes inmobiliarios que podrían solucionar problemas sociales del país como el de la vivienda?

¿Considera que este 30 % de la plantilla que exige despedir es culpable de la situación del banco?, ¿exigirá responsabilidades a los directivos?

Respuesta del Sr. Almunia en nombre de la Comisión

(15 de marzo de 2013)

La Comisión publica las versiones no confidenciales de sus decisiones y hace públicas detalladamente las razones que las motivan.

La Comisión debe omitir los secretos comerciales u otra información sensible en sus decisiones. Los Estados miembros indican los aspectos que consideren confidenciales (79) y la Comisión evalúa la solicitud.

El objetivo de la Compañía de Gestión de Activos (SAREB) es deshacerse de la cartera de préstamos y activos inmobiliarios que adquiera de los bancos del grupo 1 y 2 en un plazo de 15 años, al tiempo que optimiza los niveles de valorización y preservación de valor, reduce al mínimo el impacto negativo en la economía, el mercado inmobiliario y el sector bancario españoles, y utiliza el capital de manera eficiente. Los detalles de la ejecución incumben a los órganos de gestión de SAREB.

La reducción ordenada de los negocios del banco y la disminución consiguiente de su mano de obra se ajustan a los planes de reestructuración del banco aprobados, los cuales: i) deben traducirse en un restablecimiento de la viabilidad del banco o en su liquidación ordenada, ii) limitan la ayuda a lo estrictamente necesario e incluyen una contribución suficiente de los fondos propios del beneficiario, y iii) contemplan medidas suficientes para limitar el falseamiento de la competencia. Cuanta más ayuda reciba el banco, lo que se mide normalmente como porcentaje de sus activos ponderados en función del riesgo, mayor será la reestructuración necesaria.

La Comisión controla que los Estados miembros transpongan y apliquen correctamente el Derecho de la UE. La investigación acerca de posibles malas prácticas en la gestión de los bancos que hayan recibido ayudas estatales es competencia de las autoridades, los supervisores y los tribunales nacionales.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000702/13

to the Commission

Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL)

(24 January 2013)

Subject: Lack of transparency in financial bailout decisions

On 20 December 2012, the Directorate General for Competition published a memo about the Commission’s contribution to the Spanish financial assistance programme. It specified the steps that both the banks and the Spanish authorities would have to take before receiving the money required to restructure the country’s banks.

The Commission specified the amounts of money that would be made available to the bank sector — much less than had previously been proposed — and announced a thorough evaluation of banks’ viability in order to determine which banks would receive state aid. The restructuring plans that Spanish banks were required to present to the Commission, as the institution which approves the aid given to the sector, should put an end to high-risk trading activities and see banks transfer their most problematic assets to the so-called ‘bad bank’, reduce their geographical scope and guarantee that they will shift their banking activities towards retail credit and loans for SMEs.

The memo says that the Commission’s decisions will be published on the Directorate General for Competition website: ‘The Commission’s decisions approving the restructuring plans of the group 1 and 2 banks will be published once confidentiality issues have been checked by the Spanish authorities and the banks.’ This statement imposes a condition on the distribution of information that should be made public and which concerns all European tax payers, and especially those who hold subordinated debt or other similar instruments that will be affected by the Commission’s decisions. As far as holders of these types of debt instruments are concerned, this statement breaches Directive 2004/109/EC by not fulfilling the requirements for transparency.

The text announces that strict conditions will be imposed on the functioning of the bank sector, at least for the banks that have been evaluated, but it leaves many questions unanswered:

How will the Commission guarantee compliance with Directive 2004/109/EC, in terms of making information accessible to both affected debt holders and European tax payers, if the Spanish authorities and banks filter the content of any decisions made? What does the Commission think should be done with the Asset Management Company’s assets, in particular its property assets, which could be used to solve some of Spain’s social problems such as the housing problem?

Does the Commission believe that the 30 % of staff that it has told banks to make redundant is responsible for the current banking situation? Will the Commission hold executives accountable?

Answer given by Mr Almunia on behalf of the Commission

(15 March 2013)

The Commission publishes non-confidential versions of its decisions, making public the full reasoning behind them.

The Commission must suppress business secrets or other sensitive information in its decisions. Member States indicate the aspects they consider confidential (80) and the Commission assesses the request.

The objective of Assets’ Management Company (SAREB) is to divest the portfolio of real estate loans and assets it acquires from Group 1 and 2 banks within 15 years, while optimizing levels of recovery and value preservation, minimising negative impact on the Spanish economy, real estate market and banking sector, and utilizing capital efficiently. Specifics of the implementation are up to SAREB's management.

The orderly reduction of the bank’s business and consequent reduction of its workforce complies with the banks' approved restructuring plans, which: i) must lead to restoring the bank's viability or its orderly winding-up, ii) limit aid to the minimum necessary and include sufficient own-contribution by the beneficiary, and iii) contain sufficient measures limiting competition distortion. The more aid the bank has received, normally measured as a percentage of its risk weighted assets, the bigger the restructuring needed.

The Commission monitors Member States' correct transposition and application of EC law. Investigation of possible malpractice in the management of state aided banks is the responsibility of national authorities, supervisors and courts.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000703/13

to the Commission

Chris Davies (ALDE)

(24 January 2013)

Subject: Application of the VAT Directive to life-saving organisations

The Commission was due to start preparatory work in 2009 on a review of the provisions of the VAT Directive (2006/12/EC) with regard to the treatment of public authorities and exemptions in the public interest.

Can the Commission state what the conclusions were of this review, or what progress has been made in undertaking it, and what opportunity there remains for individuals and organisations to make representations regarding the issues being considered?

Can the Commission state whether the scope of the review extends to the payment of VAT on goods purchased by voluntary life-saving organisations such as the UK’s mountain rescue teams?

Answer given by Mr Šemeta on behalf of the Commission

(5 March 2013)

The review of the VAT treatment of public bodies and the exemptions in the public interest has not yet been finalised. A direction for future action was given by the Commission in its communication of 6 December 2011 according to which the Commission committed itself to promoting a gradual approach in this field and indicated that a future legislative proposal would concentrate on activities with a greater degree of private sector involvement and a heightened risk of a distortion of competition.

There will be a conference held on 17-19 April 2013 in Italy for both representatives of Member States' tax administrations and other stakeholders which will give the opportunity for an exchange of views on the relevant issues. More information can be found on the Commission's website at the following address (under ‘What's new’): http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/index_en.htm

The review does not specifically concern the payment of VAT on goods purchased by voluntary life-saving organisations such as the UK’s mountain rescue teams, but it encompasses the tax exemption in the public interest pursuant to Article 132 of the VAT Directive which could affect this issue.

(Versione italiana)

Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-000704/13

alla Commissione (Vicepresidente/Alto Rappresentante)

Pino Arlacchi (S&D)

(24 gennaio 2013)

Oggetto: VP/HR — Affermazioni del governo marocchino sul tema della democrazia

Nel dicembre del 2012, la Commissione europea ha lanciato un programma da 2,8 milioni di EUR per sostenere il rispetto dei diritti umani in Marocco. Il programma può essere considerato una ricompensa per le riforme intraprese dal governo marocchino nel corso degli ultimi due anni. La nuova Costituzione del Marocco stabilisce infatti diversi principi che garantiscono il rispetto dei diritti umani e delle libertà fondamentali attraverso l'istituzionalizzazione dell'attività di svariati organi in questo campo. Tuttavia, molti contestatori iniziano a domandarsi se le affermazioni del governo marocchino sul tema della democrazia riflettano qualcosa di più di semplici modifiche di facciata. Il Marocco resta un paese impoverito a causa della concentrazione anomala di ricchezza nelle mani del re e del suo entourage. Sembra inoltre che il governo stia silenziosamente reprimendo l'attivismo politico. Nell'ottobre del 2012, le Nazioni Unite hanno riferito di un recente aumento dei casi di tortura denunciati in Marocco. Circa 70 dimostranti collegati con il movimento a favore della democrazia «20 febbraio» sono tuttora in prigione. A maggio un famoso rapper è stato condannato a un anno di detenzione per una canzone sulla corruzione della polizia, mentre a settembre, in occasione di un'udienza, sei attivisti politici hanno testimoniato di aver subito abusi fisici e sessuali dopo essere stati arrestati per aver protestato nel mese di luglio.

Può la Commissione rispondere ai seguenti quesiti:

È il Vicepresidente/Alto Rappresentante a conoscenza dei fatti suesposti?

Intende il SEAE analizzare l'effettivo impatto delle riforme che il governo marocchino afferma di aver messo in atto?

Risposta dell’Alta Rappresentante/Vicepresidente Ashton a nome della Commissione

(15 marzo 2013)

L’Alta Rappresentante/Vicepresidente è pienamente impegnata nel dialogo sui diritti umani con il Marocco sulla base di quanto previsto in proposito dall’accordo di associazione tra l’UE e il Marocco. Il rispetto dei diritti umani è costantemente affrontato in sede di riunione dei competenti organi congiunti istituiti nell’ambito dell’accordo di associazione tra l’UE e tale paese, e più precisamente nel quadro del sottocomitato UE-Marocco per i diritti umani, la governance e la democrazia.

Negli ultimi anni le relazioni tra l’Unione europea e il Marocco hanno compiuto notevoli progressi contribuendo a un ampio processo di riforma democratica del paese. Sviluppi positivi al riguardo sono rappresentati dal rafforzamento delle libertà fondamentali e dei principi democratici nella nuova Costituzione nonché dalla creazione e dal consolidamento del Consiglio nazionale per i diritti umani.

È necessario, tuttavia, compiere ulteriori progressi, come evidenziano i fatti descritti nell’interrogazione parlamentare. Nel quadro dello «status avanzato» concesso al Marocco, l’Unione europea terrà dunque sotto osservazione l’attuazione delle disposizioni della nuova Costituzione nel settore dei diritti umani e della democrazia.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000704/13

to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)

Pino Arlacchi (S&D)

(24 January 2013)

Subject: VP/HR — Moroccan Government's democracy claims

In December 2012, the Commission launched an EUR 2.8 million programme in support of respect for human rights in Morocco. That programme could be viewed as a reward for the reform efforts undertaken by the Moroccan Government over the past two years. Morocco’s new Constitution indeed lays down a number of principles ensuring respect for human rights and fundamental liberties through the institutionalisation of the tasks of a number of bodies in this field. However, many critics are starting to wonder whether the Moroccan Government’s democracy claims reflect anything more than cosmetic changes. Morocco is still an impoverished country because of the abnormal concentration of wealth in the hands of its king and his entourage. Moreover, it seems that the Government is quietly clamping down on political activists. In October 2012, the United Nations said there was evidence of a recent rise in reports of torture in Morocco. About 70 protesters associated with the pro‐democracy February 20 Movement are still in prison. In May, a popular rapper was sentenced to a year in jail for a song about police corruption, while six political activists testified at a hearing in September that they had been physically — and sexually — abused after being arrested for protesting in July.

1.

Is the Vice-President/High Representative aware of the facts described above?

2.

Is the EEAS planning to analyse the real impact of the reforms that the Morrocan Government claims to have implemented?

Answer given by High Representative/Vice-President Ashton on behalf of the Commission

(15 March 2013)

The HR/VP is fully engaged in the dialogue on human rights with Morocco on the basis of the relevant provisions of the EU-Morocco Association Agreement. Respect for human rights is regularly addressed in the meetings of the relevant joint bodies established under the EU Morocco Association Agreement, and more precisely in the framework of the EU-Morocco Sub-Committee on Human Rights, Governance and Democracy.

EU-Morocco relations have made significant progress in recent years and have contributed to a wide process of democratic reform in that country. The strengthening of fundamental freedoms and democratic principles in the new Constitution as well as the establishment and consolidation of the National Council for Human Rights are positive developments in this regard.

However, further progress is necessary, as evidenced by the facts described in the Parliamentary Question. In the framework of the ‘Advanced Status’ granted to Morocco, the EU will thus follow up the implementation of the provisions of the new Constitution in the area of human rights and democracy.

(Versiunea în limba română)

Întrebarea cu solicitare de răspuns scris E-000705/13

adresată Comisiei

Adina-Ioana Vălean (ALDE)

(24 ianuarie 2013)

Subiect: Numărul european de urgență 112

Având în vedere dispozițiile articolului 26 alineatul (5) din Directiva 2009/136/CE (Directiva privind serviciul universal) referitoare la localizarea apelurilor efectuate către numărul european de urgență 112, ar trebui menționat că mai mulți operatori europeni de rețele de telefonie mobilă sunt echipați cu A-GPS, un sistem care, în anumite condiții, poate îmbunătăți performanța inițială a unui sistem GPS de poziționare bazat pe satelit.

Poate Comisia preciza în câte state membre informațiile de localizare oferite de sistemul A-GPS sunt furnizate către centrele de recepție a apelurilor de urgență?

Care este termenul până la care Comisia va face obligatorie utilizarea sistemului A-GPS, astfel încât acesta să poată contribui la salvarea de vieți omenești?

Răspuns dat de dna Kroes în numele Comisiei

(13 martie 2013)

Directiva privind serviciul universal prevede, pentru întreprinderea prin intermediul căreia se efectuează apelul, obligația de a furniza autorității care tratează apelurile de urgență informațiile privind localizarea apelantului. La același alineat, se specifică obligația autorităților de reglementare competente de a prevedea criteriile de acuratețe și fiabilitate ale informațiilor furnizate cu privire la localizarea apelantului. În consecință, este responsabilitatea statelor membre de a impune criterii aplicabile localizării apelantului. Statele membre au precizat în raportul anual al COCOM privind implementarea numărului 112, publicat de Comisie la 11 februarie, că marea majoritate a întreprinderilor furnizează identificatorul celulei pentru localizarea apelantului.

Comisia nu deține informații privind folosirea sistemului A-GPS. Utilizarea datelor GNSS (81) ar putea oferi o poziționare mult mai precisă decât identificatorul celulei.

Comisia acordă o importanță majoră furnizării către serviciile de urgență a unor informații exacte privind localizarea. Prin urmare, în prezent, serviciile Comisiei poartă discuții cu statele membre, în cadrul Comitetului pentru comunicații, cu privire la necesitatea de a pune în aplicare criterii mai stricte privind localizarea apelantului.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000705/13

to the Commission

Adina-Ioana Vălean (ALDE)

(24 January 2013)

Subject: European emergency number 112

With reference to Article 26(5) of Directive 2009/136/EC (Universal Service Directive), concerning the location of calls to the European emergency number 112, it should be noted that several European mobile networks operators are equipped with A-GPS, a system that under certain conditions can improve the start-up performance of a GPS satellite-based positioning system.

Can the Commission indicate the number of Member States in which A-GPS location information is made available to Public Safety Answering Points?

What is the Commission’s timeframe for mandating the use of A-GPS so that it can contribute towards saving lives?

Answer given by Ms Kroes on behalf of the Commission

(13 March 2013)

The Universal Service Directive contains the obligation for undertakings providing the call to make caller location available to the authority handling emergency calls. The same paragraph provides that competent regulatory authorities shall lay down criteria for the accuracy and reliability of the caller location information provided. Consequently, it is for Member States to impose caller location criteria. Member States reported in the yearly COCOMimplementation report which the Commission published on 11 February that the vast majority of undertakings provide cell ID as caller location.

The Commission does not hold information on the use of A-GPS technology. The use of GNSS (82) data could provide a much more accurate positioning than Cell ID.

The Commission attaches much importance to the delivery of accurate location information to emergency services. Therefore, the Commission services are currently discussing with Member States in the communications Committee the neccesity of implementing more stringent caller location criteria.

(Ελληνική έκδοση)

Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-000706/13

προς την Επιτροπή

Marietta Giannakou (PPE)

(24 Ιανουαρίου 2013)

Θέμα: Παραμερισμός των ευρωπαϊκών διακρατικών οργανισμών στο σχεδιασμό της έρευνας στην ΕΕ

Ο εκπεφρασμένος στόχος της ΕΕ να καταστεί η Ευρώπη η ανταγωνιστικότερη και δυναμικότερη παγκοσμίως οικονομία της γνώσης, συνετέλεσε, μεταξύ άλλων, στη σταδιακή ανάπτυξη από πλευράς Ευρωπαϊκής Επιτροπής, αρμοδίων διευθύνσεων αλλά και αυτονόμων κοινοτικών μηχανισμών σε θέματα έρευνας για το περιβάλλον, το κλίμα και το διάστημα.

Παρόλα αυτά, ερωτήματα εγείρονται όσον αφορά στην αξιοποίηση των ήδη υπαρχόντων ευρωπαϊκών οργανισμών και τη συνεργασία τους με την Ευρωπαϊκή Επιτροπή, ιδιαίτερα κατά την λήψη αποφάσεων σχετικά με τη στρατηγική και στο σχεδιασμό της έρευνας στους εν λόγω τομείς.

Ευρωπαϊκοί επιστημονικοί οργανισμοί με μακροχρόνια προσφορά στους τομείς ευθύνης τους (όπως π.χ. European Organization for the Exploitation of Meteorological Satellites (EUMETSAT), European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF), European Space Agency (ESA), The European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN), The European Southern Observatory (ESO), The Economic Interest Grouping of National Meteorological Services of the European Economic Area (ECOMET), European Molecular Biology Laboratory (EMBL), EuroGeoSurveys (EGS), European Regional Association for weather, hydrology and climate (RA6/WMO)), φαίνεται ότι δεν αξιοποιούνται στη διαδικασία σχεδιασμού της έρευνας σε ευρωπαϊκό επίπεδο παρά το τεράστιο επιστημονικό και ερευνητικό έργο τους και τη πολυετή επιχειρησιακή τους δράση.

Λαμβάνοντας υπόψη τα παραπάνω ερωτάται η Επιτροπή:

Σε ποιό βαθμό υπάρχει η απαιτούμενη συνεργασία με τους προαναφερόμενους ευρωπαϊκούς οργανισμούς, ιδιαίτερα κατά τη διαδικασία σχεδιασμού της έρευνας στους τομείς ευθύνης τους;

Έχουν παρουσιαστεί προβλήματα επικαλύψεων και συναρμοδιότητας και πώς αντιμετωπίστηκαν;

Υπάρχει θεσμική εκπροσώπηση των συγκεκριμένων οργανισμών κατά το προπαρασκευαστικό στάδιο των προτάσεων της Ευρωπαϊκής Επιτροπής σε θέματα που άπτονται του ερευνητικού και επιχειρησιακού πεδίου τους;

Δεδομένου ότι η χρηματοδότηση των εν λόγω διακρατικών οργανισμών καλύπτεται κυρίως από τα κράτη μέλη της Ένωσης, προτίθεται να προτείνει ένα διαφορετικό μοντέλο ενισχυμένης συνεργασίας για την αποφυγή δαπανηρών επικαλύψεων και περιττών επαναλήψεων;

Απάντηση της κ. Geoghegan-Quinn εξ ονόματος της Επιτροπής

(13 Μαρτίου 2013)

1, 3. Η συνεργασία με τους οργανισμούς που αναφέρει το Αξιότιμο Μέλος του Κοινοβουλίου αποτελεί τον πυρήνα του Ευρωπαϊκού Χώρου Έρευνας (ΕΧΕ). Η Επιτροπή συνεργάζεται σε πολυμερές επίπεδο, μεταξύ άλλων μέσω του μνημονίου συμφωνίας που υπογράφηκε με το EIROforum (83), βάσει του οποίου καθίσταται δυνατή η πραγματοποίηση κοινών δραστηριοτήτων στον προγραμματισμό ερευνών, στην ανταλλαγή πληροφοριών, στην κατάρτιση των ερευνητών, στις ερευνητικές υποδομές, στην ανταλλαγή γνώσεων και στη διεθνή συνεργασία.

Η διμερής συνεργασία βασίζεται σε μνημόνια συμφωνίας (84) ή στη Συνθήκη για τη Λειτουργία της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης (85), πλαισιωμένη από παράγωγο δίκαιο και συμφωνίες μεταβίβασης αρμοδιοτήτων που αφορούν ενωσιακά προγράμματα (86). Σε αυτή τη βάση, πραγματοποιούνται συχνά διμερείς συναντήσεις, ενώ η Επιτροπή προσκαλείται να παραστεί, υπό την ιδιότητα του παρατηρητή, σε συνεδριάσεις του ΔΣ, ή υπαγόμενων σε αυτό οργάνων, σε ορισμένους οργανισμούς (87). Ο ΕΟΔ (ESA) προσκαλείται στις συνεδριάσεις της επιτροπής προγράμματος, ως παρατηρητής (88). Άλλοι οργανισμοί των ενδιαφερόμενων μερών (89) παρεμβαίνουν, λόγου χάρη, μέσω δημόσιων διαβουλεύσεων ή συναντήσεων εργασίας.

Αυτή η συνεργασία διευκολύνει τη συμπληρωματικότητα και την αποφυγή αλληλεπικαλύψεων. Παρέχει στους οργανισμούς τη δυνατότητα προκαταρκτικής συμβολής σε προτάσεις της Επιτροπής και σε προγράμματα ερευνητικών εργασιών στα αντίστοιχα πεδία των δραστηριοτήτων τους. Οι περισσότεροι οργανισμοί (90) έχουν συμμετοχή στο έβδομο πρόγραμμα πλαίσιο για την έρευνα και την τεχνολογική ανάπτυξη (7οΠΠ, 2007-2013) (91).

2, 4. Οι παραπάνω διαδικασίες, σε συνδυασμό με το ρόλο των κρατών μελών σε επιτροπές προγραμμάτων και σε διαβουλεύσεις με τους ενδιαφερόμενους, στηρίζουν σε μεγάλο βαθμό τη συμπληρωματικότητα και τις συνέργειες. Η δημόσια διαβούλευση στο πλαίσιο του ΕΧΕ όσον αφορά τη μελλοντική σχέση μεταξύ διακυβερνητικών οργανισμών και της ΕΕ κατέληξε στο συμπέρασμα ότι είναι προτιμότερο να βελτιστοποιηθεί η συνεργασία με τους οργανισμούς αυτούς αντί να ενσωματωθούν στην ΕΕ.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000706/13

to the Commission

Marietta Giannakou (PPE)

(24 January 2013)

Subject: European Intergovernmental Organisations being sidelined in EU research planning

The EU’s stated objective of making Europe the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world, has contributed, inter alia, to the gradual development of competent departments and autonomous Community instruments by the European Commission in the field of research on the environment, climate and space.

Nevertheless, questions have been raised concerning the use of existing European organisations and their cooperation with the European Commission, particularly in making decisions on research strategy and planning in these fields.

It seems that European scientific organisations providing long-term services in their areas of responsibility (such as The European Organisation for the Exploitation of Meteorological Satellites (EUMETSAT); The European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF); The European Space Agency (ESA); The European Organisation for Nuclear Research (CERN); The European Southern Observatory (ESO); The Economic Interest Grouping of National Meteorological Services of the European Economic Area (ECOMET); European Molecular Biology Laboratory (EMBL); EuroGeoSurveys (EGS); and the European Regional Association for weather, hydrology and climate (RA6/WMO)), are not being used in the research planning process on a European level, despite their huge scientific and research projects and multi-annual operational activity.

In view of the above, will the Commission answer the following:

How much cooperation is there with the aforementioned European organisations, particularly during the research planning process in their areas of responsibility?

Have there been any problems concerning overlaps and shared competence and how were these dealt with?

Are these organisations represented institutionally during the preparatory phase for European Commission proposals on matters concerning their fields of research and operation?

Given that funding for these intergovernmental organisations comes mainly from EU Member States, does the Commission intend to propose a different model for enhanced cooperation to avoid expensive overlapping and unnecessary repetition?

Answer given by Ms Geoghegan-Quinn on behalf of the Commission

(13 March 2013)

1, 3. Cooperation with the organisations mentioned by the Honourable Member is at the core of the European Research Area (ERA). The Commission cooperates multilaterally, among others through the Statement of Intent signed with EIROForum (92) allowing for joint activities in research programming, information exchange, training of researchers, research infrastructures, knowledge sharing and international cooperation.

Bilateral cooperation is based on Memoranda of Understanding (93) or the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU (94), complemented by secondary legislation and delegation agreements for Union programmes (95). On this basis, there are frequent bilateral meetings and the Commission is invited to attend, as observer, meetings of Council, or subordinate bodies, of some organisations (96). ESA is invited to programme committee meetings as observer (97). Other stakeholder organisations (98) interact for instance through public consultations or workshops.

This cooperation facilitates complementarity and avoidance of overlaps. It allows the organisations to provide preliminary inputs to Commission proposals and research work programmes in their respective fields of activity. Most organisations (99) have been involved in the Seventh Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development (FP7, 2007-2013) (100).

2, 4. The aforementioned processes coupled with the role of Member States in programme committees and stakeholder consultations underpin, to a large extent, complementarity and synergies. Public consultation in the frame of ERA concerning the future relationship between intergovernmental organisations and the EU concluded it was preferable to optimise cooperation with these organisations instead of integrating them to the EU.

(Ελληνική έκδοση)

Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-000707/13

προς την Επιτροπή

Theodoros Skylakakis (ALDE)

(24 Ιανουαρίου 2013)

Θέμα: Ευρωπαϊκά προγράμματα για την καταπολέμηση της ανεργίας στην Ελλάδα

Τα ευρωπαϊκά προγράμματα για την καταπολέμηση της ανεργίας στην Ελλάδα θα έπρεπε να αποτελούν βασικό παράγοντα ενίσχυσης της απασχόλησης, δεδομένης μάλιστα της κατακόρυφης αύξησης της ανεργίας (μέσα στα τελευταία τέσσερα χρόνια καταργήθηκαν περίπου 950 000 θέσεις εργασίας, δηλαδή όσες είχαν δημιουργηθεί μέσα σε μία 17ετία). Σύμφωνα με πρόσφατο δημοσίευμα του ελληνικού τύπου (101), όλα αυτά τα χρόνια έχουν παρατηρηθεί φαινόμενα σκανδαλώδους κατασπατάλησης χρημάτων για σκοπούς άσχετους με το αντικείμενο των προγραμμάτων. Μεταξύ άλλων, σύμφωνα με το σχετικό δημοσίευμα, έχουν καταγραφεί: διαγωνισμός που ανέδειξε την εταιρεία που θα ανελάμβανε και το προεκλογικό πακέτο υπουργού, χρησιμοποίηση 5-10% των χρημάτων για την προεκλογική εκστρατεία πολιτικών, έμμεση εξαγορά εταιρειών οι ενστάσεις των οποίων απερρίφθησαν, προγράμματα αξιολόγησης που ποτέ δεν ελήφθησαν υπόψη κατά τον σχεδιασμό, παραμονή συμβούλων επί μία 20ετία σε κομβικές θέσεις ροής τεχνογνωσίας προς την Ευρωπαϊκή Επιτροπή κ.λπ.

Με δεδομένα τα ανωτέρω ερωτάται η Επιτροπή:

Γνωρίζει πώς ακριβώς γίνεται η διαχείριση των σχετικών προγραμμάτων στην Ελλάδα, εάν δηλαδή γίνεται με τρόπο που να αξιοποιεί τα διατιθέμενα χρήματα για την επίτευξη των αρχικών στόχων; Χρησιμοποιούνται χρήματα των Ευρωπαίων φορολογουμένων για την εξυπηρέτηση πολιτικών σκοπιμοτήτων;

Προτίθεται να ερευνήσει τις σχετικές καταγγελίες που έγιναν επώνυμα από μια από τις πιο σοβαρές εφημερίδες της χώρας και με ποιο τρόπο;

Θεωρεί ότι οι περιπτώσεις που αναφέρονται παραπάνω εμπίπτουν στην αρμοδιότητα του OLAF;

Απάντηση του κ. Andor εξ ονόματος της Επιτροπής

(21 Μαρτίου 2013)

1.

Η διαχείριση του προϋπολογισμού των Ευρωπαϊκών Διαρθρωτικών Ταμείων υπόκειται στους κανόνες της συνδιαχείρισης

1.

Η διαχείριση του προϋπολογισμού των Ευρωπαϊκών Διαρθρωτικών Ταμείων υπόκειται στους κανόνες της συνδιαχείρισης

 (102)

2 και 3. Η Ευρωπαϊκή Υπηρεσία Καταπολέμησης της Απάτης (OLAF) μπορεί να παρεμβαίνει σε συγκεκριμένες περιπτώσεις, όταν υπάρχουν αρκούντως σοβαρές υπόνοιες απάτης, διαφθοράς ή σοβαρές παρατυπίες, επιζήμιες για τον προϋπολογισμό της ΕΕ. Ωστόσο, στην προκειμένη περίπτωση, η Επιτροπή πληροφορήθηκε από την OLAF ότι το εν λόγω ζήτημα δεν παραπέμφθηκε σ’ αυτήν προς εξέταση. Η OLAF θα το εξετάσει και θα αποφανθεί εάν εμπίπτει στο πεδίο αρμοδιότητάς της.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000707/13

to the Commission

Theodoros Skylakakis (ALDE)

(24 January 2013)

Subject: European programmes to combat unemployment in Greece

European programmes to combat unemployment in Greece should be an important factor in fostering employment, given the sharp increase in unemployment (in the last four years, approximately 950 000 jobs have been cut, i.e. all of the jobs created in a 17-year period). According to a recent article in the Greek press (103), these years have seen the scandalous wasting of money on purposes which are unrelated to the programmes. This particular article records, amongst other things, a competition where the name of the company funding the ministerial electoral campaign package was revealed; 5-10 % of the funds were used for the political electoral campaign; the indirect acquisition of companies, challenges to which were rejected; evaluation programmes that were never taken into consideration in the planning stage; the retention of advisors who held key positions for twenty years providing expertise to the European Commission, etc.

In view of the above, will the Commission answer the following:

Does the Commission know exactly how these programmes are administered in Greece, i.e. whether the programmes’ budget is being used to achieve the initial objectives? Is European taxpayers’ money being used for political expediency?

Does it intend to investigate these accusations made by one of the country’s most important newspapers and how?

Does it believe that the situations described above fall within the jurisdiction of OLAF?

Answer given by Mr Andor on behalf of the Commission

(21 March 2013)

1.

The management of the European Structural Funds budget is subject to the rules of shared management

1.

The management of the European Structural Funds budget is subject to the rules of shared management

 (104)

2 and 3. The European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) may intervene in specific cases whenever there are sufficiently serious suspicions of fraud, corruption or serious irregularities detrimental to the EU budget. However, in this instance, the Commission has been informed by OLAF that the matter described has not been reported to it for examination. OLAF will examine it and decide if it falls within its mandate for action.

(Ελληνική έκδοση)

Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-000708/13

προς την Επιτροπή

Antigoni Papadopoulou (S&D)

(24 Ιανουαρίου 2013)

Θέμα: Πλαφόν στην τιμή του γάλακτος

Το Υπουργείο Εμπορίου της Κύπρου με διάταγμα επέβαλε πλαφόν στη λιανική και χονδρική τιμή του παστεριωμένου γάλακτος, μετά από τη διαπίστωση ότι η τιμή του σημείωνε μεγάλη αύξηση, με αποτέλεσμα να πλησιάζει στο 1,50 ευρώ ανά λίτρο και να είναι η πιο υψηλή, με διαφορά, στις χώρες της ΕΕ.

Ερωτάται η Επιτροπή:

Είναι η πιο πάνω τιμή του γάλακτος στην Κύπρο υπόψη της Επιτροπής;

Αν ναι, πώς μπορεί να δικαιολογηθεί μια τόσο μεγάλη διαφορά στις τιμές σε μια υποτιθέμενη ενιαία αγορά;

Ποια είναι η γνώμη της Επιτροπής ως προς την επιβολή πλαφόν για συγκράτηση των τιμών; Είναι η επιβολή πλαφόν σύμφωνη με τις πολιτικές της ΕΕ;

Πιστεύει η Επιτροπή ότι η επιβολή πλαφόν θα βοηθήσει στην εξομάλυνση των τιμών και της αγοράς του γάλακτος στην Κύπρο;

Υπάρχουν μέτρα που μπορεί να λάβει ή να εισηγηθεί η Επιτροπή προς όφελος των καταναλωτών και προς αποτροπή του φαινομένου της υπέρμετρης αύξησης της τιμής ενός βασικού προϊόντος, όπως είναι το γάλα;

Απάντηση του κ. Cioloş εξ ονόματος της Επιτροπής

(25 Μαρτίου 2013)

1.

Το παστεριωμένο γάλα δεν περιλαμβάνεται στον κατάλογο των προϊόντων για τα οποία τα κράτη μέλη οφείλουν να υποβάλλουν εβδομαδιαία κοινοποίηση τιμών στην Επιτροπή. Ωστόσο, η Επιτροπή παρακολουθεί στενά την εξέλιξη της αγοράς γάλακτος στην ΕΕ.

2.

Η Επιτροπή γνωρίζει την ύπαρξη αποκλίσεων στις τιμές ομοειδών προϊόντων σε διάφορα κράτη μέλη. Οι διαφορές αυτές οφείλονται σε παράγοντες όπως οι προτιμήσεις των καταναλωτών, το εισόδημα, η ρύθμιση της αγοράς εργασίας και προϊόντων, τα έξοδα μεταφοράς, κ.λπ.

3.

Ο καθορισμός μέγιστων τιμών δεν συνιστά αφεαυτού μέτρο ισοδυνάμου αποτελέσματος προς ποσοτικούς περιορισμούς, υπό την προϋπόθεση ότι δεν οδηγεί, νομικά ή πραγματικά, σε διάκριση έναντι προϊόντων άλλων κρατών μελών

3.

Ο καθορισμός μέγιστων τιμών δεν συνιστά αφεαυτού μέτρο ισοδυνάμου αποτελέσματος προς ποσοτικούς περιορισμούς, υπό την προϋπόθεση ότι δεν οδηγεί, νομικά ή πραγματικά, σε διάκριση έναντι προϊόντων άλλων κρατών μελών

 (105)

Όσον αφορά στους κανόνες ανταγωνισμού της ΕΕ, αυτοί εφαρμόζονται στη συμπεριφορά των επιχειρήσεων και όχι στα νομοθετικά μέτρα των κρατών μελών, εκτός της περίπτωσης στην οποία ένα κράτος μέλος επιβάλλει, διευκολύνει ή ενισχύει τη σύναψη περιοριστικής για τον ανταγωνισμό συμφωνίας, ή μεταθέτει σε ιδιώτες επιχειρηματίες την ευθύνη λήψης αποφάσεων περί παρεμβάσεως σε οικονομικά θέματα και, ως εκ τούτου, καθιστά τους κανόνες ανταγωνισμού αναποτελεσματικούς (106), πράγμα που δεν φαίνεται να ισχύει εδώ.

4.

Οι Αρχές Ανταγωνισμού παρακολουθούν την κατάσταση στον γαλακτοκομικό τομέα (βλ. την πρόσφατη έκθεση του ΕΔΑ σχετικά με τις δραστηριότητες στον τομέα των τροφίμων). Η Κυπριακή Αρχή Ανταγωνισμού διεξάγει έρευνα σχετικά με εικαζόμενη καταχρηστική συμπεριφορά στον τομέα του νωπού γάλακτος. Μια αύξηση στην τιμή, όπως αυτή που οδήγησε στην έκδοση του διατάγματος, μπορεί να αποτελεί συνέπεια αντιανταγωνιστικής συμπεριφοράς επιχειρήσεων και θα μπορούσε να αξιολογηθεί βάσει των γενικών κανόνων ανταγωνισμού.

5.

Η Επιτροπή είναι διατεθειμένη να εξετάσει τα πραγματικά και νομικά στοιχεία που τέθηκαν υπόψη της σχετικά με εικαζόμενη αντιανταγωνιστική συμπεριφορά, όπως υπέρμετρη τιμολόγηση στον τομέα των τροφίμων.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000708/13

to the Commission

Antigoni Papadopoulou (S&D)

(24 January 2013)

Subject: Milk price cap

The Ministry of Commerce in Cyprus has issued a decree putting a cap on the retail and wholesale price of pasteurised milk after discovering that the price of milk had increased by a large amount, to EUR 1.50 per litre, making it the highest of all EU countries.

In view of the above, will the Commission answer the following:

Is the Commission aware of the price of milk in Cyprus?

If so, how can such a large difference in prices in an alleged single market be justified?

What is the Commission’s opinion on the price cap? Does this price cap comply with EU policies?

Does the Commission believe that price capping will help to regulate milk prices and the milk market in Cyprus?

Are there any measures that the Commission could introduce to help consumers and prevent excessive increases in the price of a basic product such as milk?

Answer given by Mr Cioloş on behalf of the Commission

(25 March 2013)

1.

Pasteurised milk is not included in the list of products for which the Member States have to submit to the Commission a weekly price notification. Nevertheless, the Commission closely monitors the development of the milk market in EU.

2.

The Commission is aware of the existence of price divergences for similar products in different Member States. These differences are caused by factors such as consumer preferences, income, labour and product market regulation, transport costs etc.

3.

Setting of maximum prices does not in itself constitute a measure having an effect equivalent to quantitative restrictions provided that there is no in law or in fact discrimination against products from other Member States

3.

Setting of maximum prices does not in itself constitute a measure having an effect equivalent to quantitative restrictions provided that there is no in law or in fact discrimination against products from other Member States

 (107)

Regarding EU competition rules, they apply to the behaviour of companies and not to national laws except where Member State ‘requires, favours or reinforces an anti-competitive agreement between undertakings or where it delegates to private operators the responsibility for taking decisions affecting the economic sphere and renders thereby competition rules ineffective’ (108), which does not seem to be the case here.

4.

The Competition Authorities follow the situation in the milk sector (see the recent ECN Report on the activities in the food sector). The Cypriot competition authority investigates an alleged abusive behaviour in the raw milk sector. A price increase as the one at the origin of the adoption of the Decree may be the consequence of an anticompetitive behaviour by companies and could be assessed under the general competition rules.

5.

The Commission stands ready to carefully look into factual and legal issues brought to its attention with respect to any alleged anti-competitive behaviour such as excessive pricing in the food sector.

(Versión española)

Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-000709/13

a la Comisión (Vicepresidenta/Alta Representante)

Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL)

(24 de enero de 2013)

Asunto: VP/HR — Suicidio de Aaron Swartz

El pasado 11 de enero el joven activista y programador informático Aaron Swartz se quitaba la vida en su apartamento de Nueva York. Este controvertido y brillante joven alcanzó la fama por haber colaborado a la edad de 14 años en importantísimos proyectos informáticos que aún hoy continúan utilizándose. Más allá de su fama como genio de la programación, especialmente en el área de las aplicaciones de Internet, este joven se hizo famoso por su activismo en favor de la libre circulación de la información en la red.

Son muchas las contribuciones de este joven programador a la circulación de información en la red. Su trabajo estuvo marcado por el desarrollo de aplicaciones que facilitasen la producción y circulación de información en la red, entre ellas RSS, Reddit, Markdown, etc. Esta vertiginosa carrera como programador lo llevó a involucrarse en el cibeactivismo como única forma de defender la libertad de expresión, información y comunicación en la red.

Su currículum como activista lo llevó muy pronto a tomar conciencia de los peligros que suponen para la libertad de comunicación de la información las nuevas leyes SOPA y PIPA aprobadas en Estados Unidos. Su activismo le llevó a realizar acciones que le pondrían en riesgo, ya en 2008 fue arrestado por el FBI pero dejado en libertad sin cargos por publicar documentos judiciales públicos por los que se cobraba en un sitio web.

En julio de 2011 fue arrestado por intentar hacer públicos más de 4 millones de artículos académicos publicados por la compañía JSTOR, que no paga nada a los académicos que los escriben, siendo estos financiados con dinero público. Tras su detención por dicho acto de desobediencia, el sistema judicial de EE.UU. comenzó el proceso acusándole por crímenes con una pena de más de 30 años de prisión y más de 1 millón de dólares de fianza. Esta gravísima condena supone un proceso de persecución política que la familia ha denunciado en un comunicado acusando a los jueces y al MIT, institución donde estudiaba y donde cometió el supuesto delito, del suicidio de su joven familiar, denunciando que su muerte es « el producto de un sistema de justicia penal plagado de extralimitaciones en intimidación y persecución » .

En virtud de las relaciones transatlánticas UE-Estados Unidos, ¿se ha dirigido la Vicepresidenta/Alta Representante a las autoridades Estadounidenses para expresar su preocupación y rechazo a procesos judiciales intimidatorios como éste por delitos a favor de la libertad de expresión y comunicación?

Respuesta de la Alta Representante y Vicepresidenta Ashton en nombre de la Comisión

(27 de marzo de 2013)

La Alta Representante y Vicepresidenta ha tenido conocimiento de la trágica muerte del Sr. Aaron Swartz y se hace plenamente cargo del dolor de su familia. Sin embargo, no tiene ningún información concreta acerca de los procedimientos judiciales en este caso y, por lo tanto, no ha abordado el asunto en sus conversaciones con los Estados Unidos. Además, por regla general, la UE no interviene en los procedimientos judiciales de este tipo en terceros países como los Estados Unidos.

En lo que se refiere a la posición de la UE sobre la libertad de expresión en Internet, la Alta Representante y la Comisión adoptaron conjuntamente una propuesta de estrategia de ciberseguridad de la UE el 7 de febrero de 2012. La estrategia propuesta indica claramente el compromiso de la UE con un ciberespacio abierto y gratuito.

Esta estrategia señala que, para que el ciberespacio se mantenga abierto y gratuito, los valores, normas y principios fundamentales de la UE también se deben aplicar en Internet. También hace hincapié en que la UE espera que los ciudadanos observen también en línea los deberes cívicos, las responsabilidades sociales y las leyes a las que están sujetos en el mundo físico.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000709/13

to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)

Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL)

(24 January 2013)

Subject: VP/HR — Suicide of Aaron Swartz

On 11 January this year, the young activist and computer programmer Aaron Swartz took his own life in his apartment in New York. This controversial and brilliant young man was famous for having worked at the age of 14 on very important computer projects still in use today. Beyond his reputation as a programming genius, particularly in the area of Internet applications, this young man became famous for his activism in defence of the free circulation of information online.

The young programmer made a great many contributions to the circulation of information on the Internet. His work was marked by the development of applications that facilitated the production and circulation of information online, including RSS, Reddit, Markdown. His dizzying career as a programmer led him to become involved in cyberactivism as the only way to defend freedom of expression, information and communication on the Internet.

Early on, his career as an activist led him to become aware of the dangers posed to the freedom of information and communication by the new SOPA and PIPA laws adopted in the United States. His activism drove him to carry out actions that would place him at risk, and in 2008 the FBI arrested him — but released him without charges — for publishing public court documents for which payment was required on a website.

In July 2011, he was arrested for trying to publish more than 4 million academic articles published by the company JSTOR, which pays nothing to the academics who write them, supported by public funding. Following his arrest for this act of disobedience, the United States legal system opened a trial, accusing him of crimes with a sentence of more than 30 years in prison and more than USD 1 million for bail. This extremely heavy sentence was an act of political persecution that his family condemned in a statement blaming the judges and MIT — the institution where he studied and committed the alleged crime — for the suicide of the young member of their family, claiming that his death was the product of a criminal justice system rife with intimidation and prosecutorial overreach .

By virtue of the transatlantic relations between the EU and the United States, has High Representative/Vice-President Ashton addressed the United States authorities in order to express her concern and opposition to intimidating legal proceedings such as this for crimes committed in defence of freedom of expression and communication?

Answer given by High Representative/Vice-President Ashton on behalf of the Commission

(27 March 2013)

The HR/VP has learnt about the tragic death of Mr Aaron Swartz and fully understands the sorrow of his family. However, she does not have any particular information regarding the legal proceedings in this case and she has therefore not discussed it with the US. Moreover, as a general rule, the EU does not intervene in judicial proceedings of this kind in third countries such as the United States.

As regards the EU position on freedom of expression on the Internet, the High-Representative and the Commission jointly adopted a proposal for an EU Cybersecurity Strategy on 7 February 2012. The proposed strategy clearly articulates the commitment of the EU to a free and open cyberspace.

It stresses that for cyberspace to remain open and free, the EU core values, norms, and principles must also apply online. It also stresses that the EU expects citizens to respect civic duties, social responsibilities and laws online as much as in the physical world.

(Versão portuguesa)

Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-000710/13

à Comissão (Vice-Presidente/Alta Representante)

Ana Gomes (S&D)

(24 de janeiro de 2013)

Assunto: VP/HR — Apoio da UE a projetos destinados a estabelecer a paz no Estado Chin, Birmânia/Mianmar

Na Birmânia/Mianmar foram concluídos os primeiros acordos de cessar-fogo com 10 grupos étnicos armados e o diálogo permanente com alguns grupos conduziu à assinatura de acordos adicionais, nomeadamente um acordo de 14 pontos com a União Nacional Karen, em abril de 2012, e um acordo preliminar de 5 pontos com o Partido Novo do Estado Mon, em fevereiro e abril de 2012. Em dezembro de 2012, foi assinado também um novo acordo de 28 pontos entre a Frente Nacional Chin e o Governo da Birmânia/Mianmar. Segundo as informações recebidas, o Grupo de Apoio de Doadores para a Paz (Peace Donor Support Group) — que engloba agências de ajuda da União Europeia, do Reino Unido, da Austrália e da ONU, assim como a Iniciativa de Apoio à Paz em Mianmar liderada pela Noruega (Myanmar Peace Support Initiative (MSPI)) — comprometeu-se a disponibilizar cerca de 30 milhões de dólares US para apoiar o processo de consolidação da paz nas comunidades afetadas por conflitos. Em 3 de novembro, o Presidente da Comissão Europeia, José Manuel Barroso, assistiu à cerimónia de inauguração do Centro para a Paz da Birmânia/Mianmar, em Rangum, estabelecido por meio de um Decreto Presidencial assinado pelo Presidente Thein Sein e apoiado por um financiamento de 700 000 euros da UE. Não obstante, algumas organizações da sociedade civil da Birmânia/Mianmar manifestaram a sua preocupação quanto ao financiamento do processo de consolidação da paz. As principais preocupações assentam no facto de este processo ter sido realizado de forma precipitada, sem terem sido realizadas consultas efetivas e participativas com uma amostra representativa da sociedade civil (incluindo refugiados e pessoas deslocadas), bem como na ausência de transparência e responsabilização.

Poderia a Vice-Presidente/Alta Representante prestar esclarecimentos sobre os seguintes pontos:

Que avaliação fazem os representantes da Comissão da situação dos direitos humanos no Estado Chin?

Que montantes serão disponibilizados pela União Europeia em 2013-2014 para apoiar os esforços de estabelecimento da paz, e qual a percentagem dos fundos destinada ao Estado Chin? Que projetos de consolidação da paz financiados pela UE serão executados no Estado Chin?

De que forma pretende a UE dar resposta às preocupações manifestadas pelos grupos da sociedade civil, em particular no que respeita à realização de consultas participativas com uma amostra representativa da sociedade civil (incluindo refugiados e pessoas deslocadas) e à garantia de transparência e responsabilização?

Resposta dada pela Alta Representante/Vice-Presidente Catherine Ashton em nome da Comissão

(15 de março de 2013)

A União Europeia tem acompanhado de perto as mudanças que estão em curso em Mianmar/Birmânia, embora reconheça que será necessário tempo para que as reformas sejam aplicadas e produzam resultados. A UE está plenamente consciente de que o avanço do processo de reconciliação nacional deve ser acompanhado de esforços para reforçar o Estado de direito e o respeito dos direitos humanos. É por isso que Alto Comissariado para os Direitos Humanos (ACDH) recebe apoio da UE para permitir que a recém-criada Comissão dos Direitos Humanos birmanesa (MHCR) possa funcionar como uma instituição independente, eficaz e eficiente. A UE também foi a principal promotora da resolução de 2012 da Assembleia Geral das Nações Unidas sobre a situação dos direitos humanos em Mianmar/Birmânia. O facto inédito de essa resolução ter sido adotada por consenso mostra que existe um entendimento comum entre a comunidade internacional e o Governo de Mianmar/Birmânia, tanto quanto às realizações passadas como aos desafios futuros. Entre os desafios futuros incluem-se as violações dos direitos humanos que subsistem, em especial nas zonas habitadas por minorias étnicas.

Em matéria de ajuda ao desenvolvimento, as prioridades de financiamento a partir de 2014 ainda estão a ser revistas, tendo sido afetado um montante de 150 milhões de euros para 2012 e 2013. Além do apoio ao Centro birmanês para a Paz, está em preparação um programa de apoio à consolidação da paz, com um orçamento até 25 milhões de euros. A UE tem vários projetos em curso financiados a nível bilateral no Estado de Chin, centrados na saúde maternoinfantil. A UE é um dos principais contribuintes para os fundos fiduciários multidoadores (educação, saúde e meios de subsistência). Um grupo composto pelas várias partes interessadas (incluindo a população local e organizações da sociedade civil) está atualmente a discutir a forma de realizar uma avaliação conjunta, com vista a identificar as necessidades prioritárias no Estado de Chin. Com base nesta consulta das partes interessadas, a Comissão terá capacidade para determinar a nossa resposta no Estado de Chin, incluindo a favor da consolidação da paz.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000710/13

to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)

Ana Gomes (S&D)

(24 January 2013)

Subject: VP/HR — EU support for peacebuilding projects in Chin State, Burma/Myanmar

Initial ceasefire agreements have been reached with 10 ethnic armed groups in Burma/Myanmar and continuing dialogue with some groups has resulted in additional agreements, including a 14-point agreement with the Karen National Union in April 2012 and a preliminary five-point agreement with the New Mon State Party in February and April. A new 28-point agreement was also signed in December 2012 between the Chin National Front and the government of Burma/Myanmar. According to information received, the Peace Donor Support Group — which includes aid agencies from the European Union, the UK, Australia and the UN, as well as the Norwegian-led Myanmar Peace Support Initiative (MSPI) — has pledged nearly USD 30 million to support peacebuilding in conflict-affected communities. On 3 November, Commission President José Manuel Barroso attended the opening of the Myanmar Peace Centre in Yangon/Rangoon, established by presidential decree of President Thein Sein and supported by EUR 700 000 funding from the EU. However, some Burma/Myanmar civil society organisations have expressed concerns about funding in support of peacebuilding. Key concerns are that the process has been rushed, without effective, participatory consultations with a broad cross-section of civil society (including IDPs and refugees), and lacks transparency and accountability.

Could the Vice-President/High Representative clarify the following points:

What assessment have representatives of the Commission made of the human rights situation in Chin State?

How much funding will be provided from the European Union in 2013-2014 as part of support for peacebuilding efforts, and what percentage will be earmarked for Chin State? What are the EU-funded peacebuilding projects to be undertaken in the Chin State?

How does the EU plan to address concerns expressed by civil society groups, particularly with regard to conducting participatory consultations with a broad cross-section of civil society (including refugees and IDPs) and ensuring transparency and accountability?

Answer given by High Representative/Vice-President Ashton on behalf of the Commission

(15 March 2013)

The EU has followed with closely the changes taking place in Myanmar/Burma while recognising that reforms will take time to implement and bear fruit. The EU is fully conscious that moving forward in the national reconciliation process must be coupled with endeavours to strengthen the rule of law and the respect of human rights. That is why the OHCHR receives EU support to enable the newly established Myanmar Human Rights Commission (MHRC) to work as an independent, effective and efficient institution. The EU was again the main sponsor of the United Nations General Assembly resolution on the situation of human rights in Myanmar in 2012. The fact that the resolution was adopted by consensus for the first time shows the common understanding between the international community and the Government of Myanmar/Burma, of both achievements and challenges ahead. The latter include remaining human rights violations, in particular in ethnic areas.

Concerning development assistance, for 2014 onwards funding priorities are still be reviewed, and for 2012 and 2013 a package of EUR 150 million has been allocated. In addition to support for the Myanmar Peace Centre, an up to EUR 25 million peacebuidling support programme is under preparation. The EU has several ongoing projects funded bilaterally in Chin focusing on child and maternal health. The EU is a major contributor to the multi-donor trust funds (education, health and livelihoods). A multi-stakeholder group (including the local population and civil society organisations) is currently discussing how to conduct a joint assessment to identify priority needs in Chin. Based on this stakeholder consultation we will be able to determine our response in Chin State, including for peacebuilding.

(Dansk udgave)

Forespørgsel til skriftlig besvarelse E-000711/13

til Kommissionen

Jens Rohde (ALDE)

(24. januar 2013)

Om: Elbiler

Der kommer flere og flere elbiler, og i den forbindelse arbejdes der løbende fra EU's side på at sikre en standardisering af både batterier, opladere og opladesystemer, således at biler på tværs af fabrikanter kan oplades de samme steder med det samme udstyr.

I denne forbindelse er der imidlertid blevet overset et vigtigt aspekt af standardiseringsprocessen i forhold til sikkerheden af bilernes konstruktion.

Grundet de mange strømførende ledninger og højspænding i bilen kan det være særdeles farligt at skulle klippe fastklemte personer ud af disse biler i ulykkessituationer. Der har for eksempel i Danmark været flere tilfælde, hvor redningsmandskabet har været nødsaget til at lade biler brænde ud, fordi det har været for risikabelt at skære i bilen for at redde en person ud.

På den baggrund ville det være brugbart med fælles standarder, således at redningspersonalet ved, hvor højspændingskablerne, batterierne etc. er placeret, samt at diverse ledninger til samme formål eksempelvis havde samme farve.

1.

Er Kommissionen bekendt med ovennævnte problemstilling og de alvorlige sikkerhedsmæssige konsekvenser heraf?

2.

Er Kommissionen villig til at inkludere dette aspekt i sit standardiseringsarbejde vedrørende elbiler?

Svar afgivet på Kommissionens vegne af Antonio Tajani

(8. marts 2013)

Kommissionen er opmærksom på de sikkerhedsmæssige konsekvenser af anvendelsen af elbiler. Den har derfor taget de nødvendige skridt for at sikre beskyttelsen af personer i eldrevne køretøjer, både under kørslen og i tilfælde af en ulykke.

I denne forbindelse har Kommissionen været involveret i udformningen af tekniske krav til sikkerheden for batterier monteret i elbiler inden for rammerne af en arbejdsgruppe inden for De Forenede Nationers Økonomiske Kommission for Europa (UNECE). Disse bestemmelser blev vedtaget i november 2012 af den kompetente arbejdsgruppe under UNECE (WP29) som ændringsserie 2 til det eksisterende regulativ nr. 100 om ensartede forskrifter for godkendelse af elektriske batteridrevne køretøjer for så vidt angår specifikke krav til konstruktion og funktionel sikkerhed.

Der er således på nuværende tidspunkt regulativer i kraft, der garanterer sikkerheden for elbiler som helhed og for batterier som komponenter heri.

Desuden forhindrer vedtagelsen af ovennævnte krav ikke medlemsstaterne i at vedtage supplerende foranstaltninger med henblik på at sikre effektiviteten af indsatser foretaget af beredskabstjenesters personale, f.eks. ved specifikke uddannelser, der bidrager til hurtig identificering af køretøjets højspændingsdele og de mest hensigtsmæssige foranstaltninger i en konkret situation. I denne forbindelse skal det understreges, at de myndigheder, der har ansvaret for beredskabstjenesterne, kan variere fra den ene medlemsstat til den anden, og at disse tjenester varetages på lokalt, regionalt eller nationalt plan.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000711/13

to the Commission

Jens Rohde (ALDE)

(24 January 2013)

Subject: Electric cars

As more and more electric cars are coming on to the market, the EU is working constantly to ensure standardisation of batteries, chargers and charging systems, so that cars made by all manufacturers can be charged at the same charging stations with the same equipment.

However, one important aspect of this standardisation process has been overlooked, concerning the safety of the car’s construction.

Because of the many electric cables and the high voltage in these cars, it can be very dangerous to cut people out of the car when they are trapped in an accident. In Denmark, for example, there have been a number of cases in which the rescue team were obliged to let the car burn out, because it was too risky to cut into the car to rescue a person trapped inside.

That being so, it would be useful to have common standards so that rescue personnel know where the high voltage cables, batteries etc. are located, and it would also be helpful for different cables with the same purpose to be the same colour, for example.

1.

Is the Commission aware of the above problem and its serious safety implications?

2.

Is the Commission prepared to consider this aspect in its work on the standardisation of electric cars?

Answer given by Mr Tajani on behalf of the Commission

(8 March 2013)

The Commission is aware of the safety implications involved in the operation of electric vehicles. It has therefore been taking the necessary steps in order to ensure the protection of the occupants of vehicles running with electric power, both during driving and in case of an accident.

In this respect, the Commission has been involved in the definition of technical requirements with respect to the safety of batteries fitted in electric vehicles, in the framework of a working group within the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE). These provisions were adopted in November 2012 by the competent working party of the UNECE (WP29), as a second series of amendments to the already existing Regulation No 100 on uniform provisions concerning the approval of battery electric vehicles with regard to specific requirements for the construction and functional safety.

Hence, regulations are currently in force ensuring the safe behaviour of electric vehicles as a whole and also of batteries as a component.

Furthermore, the adoption of the abovementioned requirements does not preclude Member States from adopting additional measures in order to guarantee an effective operation by emergency services personnel, for instance, through specific training helping to quickly recognise the high voltage parts of the vehicle and the most appropriate measures to be undertaken in any specific situation. In this respect, it should be emphasised that the authorities responsible for emergency services may vary from one Member State to another, and are handled either at local, regional or national level.

(Dansk udgave)

Forespørgsel til skriftlig besvarelse E-000712/13

til Kommissionen

Jens Rohde (ALDE)

(24. januar 2013)

Om: Økologisk biavl i Danmark

I den danske »Vejledning om økologisk jordbrugsproduktion« udgivet af Ministeriet for Fødevarer, Landbrug og Fiskeri, juli 2012, er der anført følgende bestemmelse vedrørende økologisk biavl:

»Du skal placere bigården i et område, hvor nektar‐ og pollenkilderne i en radius på 3 km fra bigården hovedsagelig består af økologiske afgrøder, vild bevoksning eller bevoksning på arealer, som bliver behandlet efter miljøskånsomme metoder, som ikke påvirker biavlens økologiske status. Dette kan f.eks. være visse arealer, som er omfattet af MVJ-tilsagn, eller Natura 2000 områder. Bigården må ikke være i nærheden af forureningskilder, som kan medføre forurening af honning eller forringe biernes sundhed — f.eks. industriområder, byområder og motorveje.«

Ifølge Danmarks Biavlerforening betyder den danske vejledning i praksis, at det er umuligt at drive økologisk biavl i Danmark. Derudover står indholdet i vejledningen også i modsætning til eksempelvis præmisserne for den øvrige danske økologiske fødevareproduktion. Økologisk dansk planteproduktion foregår i Danmark side om side med konventionel planteproduktion og er dermed udsat for påvirkning i form af blandt andet afdrift af sprøjtemidler og luftbåren nitrat.

1.

Finder Kommissionen, at den danske vejledning er i overensstemmelse med forordning (EF) nr. 889/2008 af 5. september, artikel 13, om regulering af økologisk biavl?

2.

Såfremt den danske vejledning er i overensstemmelse med forordningen, er det da Kommissionens opfattelse, at de lovgivningsmæssige rammer for økologisk biavl i Danmark ikke sidestiller økologisk biavl med andre former for økologisk fødevareproduktion i Danmark, f.eks. i forhold til krav hvad angår mulig påvirkning fra dyrkningsmetoder knyttet til konventionel planteavl?

3.

Kan Kommissionen oplyse, hvorledes andre medlemslande administrerer den pågældende forordning, og om forordningen i disse lande har samme konsekvenser for økologisk biavl, som det er tilfældet i Danmark?

Svar afgivet på Kommissionens vegne af Dacian Cioloş

(13. marts 2013)

1.

Indholdet af den danske vejledning, der henvises til i spørgsmålet, er i overensstemmelse med både artikel 13 i Kommissionens forordning (EF) nr. 889/2008

1.

Indholdet af den danske vejledning, der henvises til i spørgsmålet, er i overensstemmelse med både artikel 13 i Kommissionens forordning (EF) nr. 889/2008

 (109)  (110)

2.

EU-lovgivningen om økologisk produktion forskelsbehandler ikke økologiske biavlere i forhold til andre producenter af økologiske fødevarer. En række videnskabelige undersøgelser har vist, at bier normalt samler pollen i en radius af 3 km fra bigården, og dette særlige forhold skal der tages hensyn til, når der fastlægges regler for økologisk biavl.

3.

Det er vigtigt at bemærke, at medlemsstaterne i henhold til artikel 13, stk. 2, i Kommissionens forordning (EF) nr. 889/2008 kan udpege regioner eller områder, hvor der ikke kan drives biavl i overensstemmelse med reglerne for økologisk produktion. På dette grundlag kan de danske myndigheder fastsætte begrænsninger for, i hvilke områder bigårde kan opnå økologisk certificering.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000712/13

to the Commission

Jens Rohde (ALDE)

(24 January 2013)

Subject: Organic beekeeping in Denmark

The ‘Vejledning om økologisk jordbrugsproduktion ’ (guidelines on organic farming) published by the Danish Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Fisheries sets forth the following provision regarding organic beekeeping:

‘You must place the apiary on a site where the nectar and pollen sources within a radius of 3 km from the apiary consist mainly of organically produced crops, spontaneous vegetation or vegetation on land which is being treated with low environmental impact methods that do not affect the qualification of beekeeping production as being organic. This may, for example, be certain areas covered by agri-environmental commitments or Natura 2000 areas. The apiary should not be in the vicinity of sources of pollution, which can lead to the contamination of honey or impair the health of the bees — e.g. industrial or urban areas and motorways.’

According to the Danish Beekeepers’ Association, the Danish guidelines mean in practice that it is impossible to carry out organic beekeeping in Denmark. In addition, the content of these guidelines is also contrary, for example, to the premises governing other Danish organic food production. Organic crop production takes place in Denmark side by side with conventional crop production and is thus exposed to external effects, inter alia in the form of spray drift and airborne nitrates.

1.

Does the Commission consider that the Danish guidelines are in line with Article 13 of Regulation (EC) No 889/2008 of 5 September 2008 regulating organic beekeeping?

2.

If the Danish guidelines are in line with the regulation, does the Commission consider that the legislative framework for organic beekeeping in Denmark does not treat organic beekeeping in the same way as other forms of organic food production in Denmark, for example as regards the requirements concerning the possible effects of farming methods associated with conventional cultivation?

3.

Can the Commission indicate how other Member States apply this regulation, and if the regulation has the same impact on organic beekeeping in these countries as it does in Denmark?

Answer given by Mr Cioloş on behalf of the Commission

(13 March 2013)

1.

The text of the Danish guidelines taken up in the question is in line with both Article 13 to Commission Regulation (EC) No 889/2008

1.

The text of the Danish guidelines taken up in the question is in line with both Article 13 to Commission Regulation (EC) No 889/2008

 (111)  (112)

2.

The European organic legislation does not discriminate the organic beekeepers compared to the other organic producers. Several scientific studies show that bees have a specific behaviour by gathering pollen around their apiary within a radius of 3 km, and this specific issue has to be taken into account when considering rules for organic apiculture.

3.

It is important to note that, in accordance with Article 13(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 889/2008, Member States may designate regions or areas where beekeeping complying with organic production rules is not practicable. Based on that, the Danish authorities may restrain the areas where the apiary can be organically certified.

(Versione italiana)

Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-000713/13

alla Commissione

Roberta Angelilli (PPE)

(24 gennaio 2013)

Oggetto: Valutazione dell'affidamento condiviso a livello europeo

I bambini sono i soggetti più esposti in caso di tensioni e conflitti familiari.

In base all'articolo 24 della Carta dei diritti fondamentali dell'Unione europea ogni bambino ha diritto di intrattenere regolarmente relazioni personali e contatti diretti con entrambi i genitori.

Ciò dovrebbe concretarsi, in caso di separazione o divorzio, in un rapporto equilibrato e continuativo del minore con i due genitori.

Dalle informazioni disponibili sul sito della Rete giudiziaria europea, sono molti gli Stati membri che prevedono l'affido condiviso, che, se applicato rigorosamente, può comportare maggiori benefici per i figli. Eppure, al di là della sottrazione internazionale di minori, esistono moltissimi casi di figli nati dall'unione di persone con la stessa nazionalità che in seguito a separazione si trovano a non avere più contatti regolari con un genitore.

Si tratta di un fenomeno sommerso che porta migliaia di bambini a non avere più relazioni non solo con uno dei due genitori, ma anche con i relativi rami parentali.

Poiché alla tutela dell'interesse supremo del minore è speculare il diritto/dovere di entrambi i genitori di crescere, educare e mantenere la prole, con pari dignità e pari diritti, si prega la Commissione di chiarire:

se esistono dati a livello degli Stati membri sulle percentuali di affidamento dei minori ai padri, alle madri o in regime di affidamento condiviso;

se esistono studi sulla effettiva attuazione dell'affido condiviso e se questi evidenziano, come all’interpellante risulta da più fonti, disparità importanti nell’applicazione del medesimo nei confronti dei minori di differenti Stati;

se esistono studi che individuano le migliori pratiche a tutela della bi-genitorialità;

se è a conoscenza di organizzazioni o reti di organizzazioni che tutelano le relazioni genitori-figli nel caso di separazioni.

Risposta di Viviane Reding a nome della Commissione

(7 marzo 2013)

La Commissione concorda pienamente con il parere espresso dall'onorevole parlamentare sul fatto che i bambini siano i soggetti più esposti in caso di conflitti familiari e che i loro diritti sanciti dall'articolo 24 della Carta dei diritti fondamentali debbano essere tutelati.

La definizione di affidamento condiviso appartiene al diritto sostanziale di famiglia e, in quanto tale, non rientra nell'ambito di competenza dell'UE, ma esclusivamente in quello degli Stati membri. Ciò spiega le eventuali disparità tra i sistemi nazionali per quanto riguarda la definizione di affidamento condiviso e la sua effettiva attuazione.

La Commissione non è a conoscenza di studi, migliori prassi o dati riguardanti la custodia condivisa dei figli o la bi-genitorialità. Tuttavia, con il sostegno finanziario del Parlamento europeo, il 1° settembre 2012 la Commissione ha lanciato uno studio della durata di due anni per raccogliere dati sulla partecipazione dei minori nei procedimenti penali, amministrativi e giudiziari civili nei 27 Stati membri dell'UE e in Croazia.

Nell'ambito delle consultazioni sulla politica in materia di diritti del bambino, la Commissione è venuta a conoscenza di organizzazioni che tutelano le relazioni genitori-figli nel caso di separazioni, quali l'International Social Service.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000713/13

to the Commission

Roberta Angelilli (PPE)

(24 January 2013)

Subject: Assessment of joint custody at European level

Children are the most vulnerable ones in situations of family tension and conflict.

Under Article 24 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, every child has ‘the right to maintain on a regular basis a personal relationship and direct contact with both of his or her parents.’

In practice, in the event of separation or divorce, this should mean a balanced and continuing relationship for the child with both parents.

From the information available on the website of the European Judicial Network, many Member States have made provision for joint custody, which, if rigorously applied, can be extremely beneficial for the children. However, quite apart from international child abduction, there are very many cases of children born to parents of the same nationality, who, following a separation, no longer have regular contact with one parent.

This is a hidden issue that results in thousands of children losing contact not only with one of the two parents, but also with their relatives on that side of the family.

In terms of safeguarding the child’s best interests, both parents have the same right/duty to raise, educate and support their offspring, with equal status and rights.

Can the Commission answer the following:

Is there any data at Member State level on the percentages of children in the custody of the father and of the mother, as well as the percentage of children in joint custody?

Are there any studies into the effective implementation of joint custody? If so, do these studies show — as the questioner has heard from various sources — major disparities in the implementation of this system for children from different Member States?

Are there any studies that identify best practices for safeguarding co-parenting?

Is it aware of any organisations, or networks of organisations, that safeguard parent-child relations in the event of a separation?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(7 March 2013)

The Commission fully shares the views expressed by the Honourable Member that children are the most vulnerable parties in the event of family conflicts and that their rights as enshrined in Article 24 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights need to be protected.

The definition of joint custody belongs to substantive family law. As such, it does not fall within the EU's competence but remains under the sole responsibility of the Member States. This explains why there may be differences in the national systems as regards the definition of joint custody and how it works in practice.

The Commission is not aware of any studies, best practices or data collected in respect of children in joint custody or co-parenting. However, with the financial support of the European Parliament, the Commission launched on 1 September 2012, a two-year study to collect data on children's involvement in criminal, administrative and civil judicial proceedings in the 27 Member States of the EU and in Croatia.

The Commission is aware of organisations that safeguard parent-child relations in the event of a separation, such as The International Social Service, as a result of the consultations it conducts concerning its rights-of-the-child policy.

(Dansk udgave)

Forespørgsel til skriftlig besvarelse E-000714/13

til Kommissionen

Christel Schaldemose (S&D)

(24. januar 2013)

Om: Krav til mobilantenner og telefonnet

I maj 2012 stillede jeg Kommissionen et spørgsmål om dårlige antenner i mobiltelefoner. Svaret fra Kommissionen lød dengang, at Kommissionen ikke ville gøre noget, men at »man fulgte udviklingen« på området.

Der er nu kommet ny viden frem, og det giver efter min mening anledning til at revurdere behovet for handling på EU-plan.

Den danske tv-kanal TV2 har sammen med flere forskere undersøgt dækningen af telefonnettet i Danmark (113). Denne grundige undersøgelse viser, at dækningen er katastrofal. Forskere fra Aalborg Universitet har ligeledes undersøgt forskellige — herunder de populære smartphones — mobiltelefoners antenner. Også her viser der sig at være ringe resultater, idet antennerne ofte ikke er tilstrækkelige til at kunne fange svagere signaler.

Uanset om det er teleselskaberne eller mobiltelefonproducenterne, der bør oppe sig, så rammer det forbrugerne. Jeg vil derfor gerne spørge Kommissionen:

Hvad er Kommissionens kommentar til de seneste oplysninger?

Deler Kommissionen min holdning til, at der bør ske en bedre informering af forbrugerne igennem en EU-mærkningsordning om antennestyrker? Hvis man som forbruger bor i et område med en mindre god dækning, er det jo værd at gå efter en telefon med en særlig god antenne. En mærkningsordning kan derfor hjælpe forbrugerne på vej.

Vil Kommissionen genoverveje at stille krav til en ny minimumsstandard for mobilantenner på det europæiske marked?

Jeg beder derfor om, at Kommissionen vil revurdere behovet for politisk handling set i lyset af de nye oplysninger. Jeg vedlægger links til relevante oplysninger fra TV2s dækning af sagen (114)  (115)  (116).

Svar afgivet på Kommissionens vegne af Antonio Tajani

(18. marts 2013)

Krav til mobiltelefonantenners modtagelsesevne (følsomhed) er allerede indført på grundlag af R&TTU-direktivet (117). Det ville være kompliceret at indføre obligatorisk mærkning med angivelse af, hvilken slags antenner, der findes i smartphones, svarende til forskellige frekvensbånd og funktionaliteter (2G, 3G, 4G og WiFi), og det ville ikke nødvendigvis være forståelig for forbrugerne. Kommissionen finder det derfor ikke på nuværende tidspunkt hensigtsmæssigt at indføre yderligere krav med hensyn til en sådan EU-mærkningsordning. Kommissionen vil rejse spørgsmålet for offentlige myndigheder, fabrikanter og forbrugerrepræsentanter på et kommende møde i ekspertgruppen vedrørende gennemførelse af R&TTU-direktivet, og Kommissionen vil også overveje, om en uafhængig undersøgelse vil være nyttig for bedre at kunne vurdere situationen.

Krav til mobilnets dækning er ikke harmoniserede på EU-plan, men afhænger af de licensbetingelser, som medlemsstaterne har fastsat for operatørerne. F.eks. har Danmark, for mobiltjenester i 800 MHz-båndet, fastsat krav til dækning af tæt befolkede områder, som vil sikre en bedre dækning, end det for eksempel er påkrævet for universelle mobile telekommunikationstjenester, som opererer i 2100 MHz-båndet.

Kommissionen støtter foranstaltninger, der fremmer konkurrencedygtige mobilmarkeder, og mener, at indførelsen af dækningsforpligtelser tjener de mål vedrørende bredbånd, der er opstillet i Kommissionens digitale dagsorden for Europa til støtte af øget økonomisk og social velfærd.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000714/13

to the Commission

Christel Schaldemose (S&D)

(24 January 2013)

Subject: Requirements for mobile antennae and telephone networks

In May 2012, I put a question to the Commission about poor antennae in mobile phones. In its answer, the Commission said it would not do anything, but that it was following developments in the area.

New knowledge has now appeared which, in my opinion, gives cause for a reassessment of the need for action at EU level.

The Danish television channel TV2, together with a number of researchers, conducted a study into telephone network coverage in Denmark (118). This thorough study shows that coverage is catastrophic. Researchers from Aalborg University have also investigated different mobile phone antennae — including those of popular smartphones. Here too the results have been poor, as the antennae are often unable to capture weaker signals.

Regardless of whether it is the telecom companies or the mobile phone manufacturers who should be making an effort, it is the consumer that suffers.

What is the Commission’s response to this latest information?

Does the Commission agree that consumers should be better informed through an EU labelling system on antenna strength? If a consumer lives in an area with less good coverage, is there any point in going for a phone with a very good antenna? A labelling system can therefore help consumers make their choice.

Will the Commission reconsider introducing requirements for a new minimum standard for mobile antennae in the European market?

Will the Commission therefore reassess the need for political action in light of this new information. I enclose links to relevant information from TV2’s coverage of this matter (119)  (120)  (121).

Answer given by Mr Tajani on behalf of the Commission

(18 March 2013)

Requirements for reception capability (sensitivity) of antennas in mobile phones are already in place on the basis of the R&TTE Directive (122). Introduction of compulsory labelling for the variety of antennas present within smartphones, corresponding to various bands and functionalities (2G, 3G, 4 G, WiFi), would be complex in its implementation and would not necessarily be understood by consumers. Therefore the Commission does not currently consider it appropriate to introduce additional requirements with regard to such an EU labelling system. The Commission will bring the matter to the attention of public authorities, manufacturers and consumer representatives within a future meeting of the expert group for the implementation of the R&TTE Directive, and will also consider whether an independent study would be helpful in order to better assess the situation.

Regarding requirements for coverage of mobile networks, they are not harmonised at EU level but depend on the licensing conditions set by Member States for operators. For example, for mobile services in the 800 MHz band, Denmark has set requirements for coverage of densely populated areas which will ensure a better coverage than required for example of Universal Mobile Telecommunication Services operating in the 2100 MHz band.

The Commission supports measures reinforcing competitive mobile markets and considers that the imposition of coverage obligations serves the broadband targets set out in its Digital Agenda for Europe strategy in support of increasing economic and social welfare.

(Versión española)

Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-000715/13

a la Comisión

Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE)

(24 de enero de 2013)

Asunto: Posible blanqueo de capitales en España en relación al proyecto «Eurovegas»

El Gobierno de la Comunidad de Madrid ha aprobado a través de la Ley 8/2012, de 28 de diciembre, de Medidas Fiscales y Administrativas de la Comunidad de Madrid una serie de reformas para favorecer la implantación del macroproyecto «Eurovegas» en la Comunidad de Madrid. Por otro lado, la legislación estatal (Ley 10/2010, de 28 de abril, de prevención del blanqueo de capitales y de la financiación del terrorismo), establece determinadas medidas de prevención del blanqueo de capitales, que sujeta a las obligaciones establecidas en dicha Ley a «las personas físicas o jurídicas que ejerzan aquellas otras actividades profesionales o empresariales particularmente susceptibles de ser utilizadas para el blanqueo de capitales », considerando expresamente entre ellas a «l os casinos de juego », en transposición conforme a la previsión contenida en el artículo 2, apartado 1, letra f), de la Directiva 2005/60/CE (123).

Las modificaciones aprobadas por la nueva Ley 8/2012 introducen la figura de los Centros Integrados de Desarrollo con nuevas condiciones con respecto al juego:

Permiten que los operadores de casinos y otros establecimientos de juego en Centros Integrados de Desarrollo puedan conceder «operaciones de crédito a jugadores » (artículo 24 de la Ley antedicha), sin concretar las condiciones de transparencia e información de tales operaciones. En el mismo sentido insiste con un nuevo artículo 8, apartado 6, de la Ley 6/2001, de 3 de julio, del Juego de la Comunidad de Madrid, cuando expresamente dispone que «las empresas titulares de Casinos de Juego podrán conceder préstamos, créditos o cualquier otra modalidad equivalente de financiación a los jugadores (…)».

Se incorpora también la posibilidad de que dentro de los casinos se desarrollen actividades de mediación para la promoción del juego, requiriéndose una aclaración sobre sus consecuencias ya que podría suponer la legalización del sistema de intermediarios (junkers).

Se introduce también la capacidad —previa comunicación a la Comisión del Juego introducida en esta Ley— para implementar nuevos juegos, aunque no estén especificados en la solicitud inicial. Por todo ello, se pregunta a la Comisión:

¿Considera que los cambios introducidos en la legislación de la Comunidad de Madrid a través de la Ley 8/2012 garantizan el cumplimiento de la Directiva 2005/60/CE?

¿Piensa requerir nueva información a las autoridades españolas y a las regionales de la Comunidad de Madrid para reanudar la investigación preliminar abierta a raíz de la Petición 0555/2012 al Parlamento Europeo sobre el macroproyecto «Eurovegas».

Respuesta del Sr. Barnier en nombre de la Comisión

(2 de abril de 2013)

La Ley n° 10/2010 española incorpora la Directiva 2005/60/CE (124) al ordenamiento jurídico nacional y somete a los casinos a las obligaciones de la Directiva contra el blanqueo de capitales (DBC), tales como la detección, comprobación y notificación de las transacciones sospechosas. La nueva propuesta de DBC (125) amplía el ámbito de aplicación de la misma a fin de contemplar todos los servicios de juegos de azar, además de los casinos.

La Directiva 2005/60/CE se basa en una armonización mínima y el Derecho nacional puede hacer frente de diferentes maneras a los riesgos más amplios asociados a otras formas de juegos de apuestas y a los riesgos específicos existentes en un territorio. Los cambios introducidos por la nueva Ley 8/2012 en relación con el juego no parecen afectar a las obligaciones establecidas en la DBC y la legislación española, que se siguen aplicando a los casinos. En la medida en que se considerase que las actividades de los distintos mediadores para la promoción del juego (junkets) pueden entrañar un riesgo elevado, las autoridades españolas estarían autorizadas a establecer controles efectivos como, por ejemplo, mecanismos de reglamentación, de concesión de licencias o de supervisión para hacer frente a los posibles riesgos.

De la información disponible se desprende que ningún proyecto del carácter expuesto por Su Señoría está siendo autorizado por las autoridades españolas. La Comisión no puede determinar si el Derecho de la UE se ha aplicado correctamente o no en relación con un posible proyecto futuro y, por lo tanto, en el presente asunto, no puede intervenir en una fase tan temprana, en la que las disposiciones pertinentes del Derecho de la UE todavía no son aplicables. A falta de un proyecto o de cualquier indicación de que las autoridades españolas no vayan a aplicar correctamente la legislación pertinente de la UE, de solicitarse la autorización para cualquier proyecto de ese tipo, la Comisión considera que este asunto no justifica por el momento que se recabe información de las autoridades españolas.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000715/13

to the Commission

Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE)

(24 January 2013)

Subject: Possible money laundering in Spain in connection with the ‘Eurovegas’ project

The Government of the Autonomous Community of Madrid, by Law 8/2012, of 28 December, on Fiscal and Administrative Measures of the Autonomous Community of Madrid, has adopted a series of reforms to promote the implementation of the ‘Eurovegas’ macro-project in the Autonomous Community of Madrid. In addition, national legislation — Law 10/2010, of 28 April, on the prevention of money laundering and terrorist financing — provides for certain measures to prevent money laundering by which ‘natural or legal persons who carry out those other professional or business activities particularly likely to be used for money laundering’ are subject to the obligations laid down in this Law, explicitly including among them ‘gambling casinos’, as transposed in accordance with the provision contained in Article 2(1)(f) of Directive 2005/60/EC. (126).

The changes adopted in the new Law 8/2012 introduce Integrated Development Centres with new conditions in relation to gambling:

They allow operators of casinos and other gambling establishments in Integrated Development Centres to grant ‘credit operations to gamblers’ (Article 24 of the aforementioned Law), without specifying the conditions of transparency and information of such operations. Similarly, it insists on including Article 8, paragraph 6 (new) of Law 6/2001, of 3 July, on Gambling in the Autonomous Community of Madrid, when it explicitly provides that ‘companies owning Gambling Casinos shall be allowed to grant loans, credit or any other equivalent method of financing to gamblers’.

It also includes the possibility that within casinos intermediary activities shall take place to promote gambling; clarification on the consequences of this is required, given that it could lead to the legalisation of a system of intermediaries (‘junkers’).

It also introduces the capacity — with prior notification to the Gaming Commission introduced in this Law — to implement new gambling games, although these are not specified in the original application. Therefore, the Commission is asked:

Does it consider that the changes made to the law in the Autonomous Community of Madrid by Law 8/2012 will ensure compliance with Directive 2005/60/EC?

Is it considering requesting further information from the national authorities and regional authorities of the Autonomous Community of Madrid in order to resume the preliminary enquiry opened following Petition 0555/2012 submitted to the European Parliament on the ‘Eurovegas’ macro-project?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(2 April 2013)

Spanish Law Act 10/2010 transposes Directive 2005/60/EC (127) and subjects casinos to Anti Money Laundering Directive (AMLD) obligations such as identification and verification and reporting of suspicious transactions. The new proposal of AMLD (128) broadens the scope of the directive beyond casinos to cover all gambling services.

Directive 2005/60/EC is based on minimum harmonisation and national law can address the broader risks associated with other forms of gambling and the specific existing risks in a jurisdiction in different ways. The changes included by the new Law 8/2012 in relation to gambling do not seem to affect the obligations laid down in the AMLD and the Spanish Act which continue to apply to casinos. Insofar as junket operators’ activities are identified as potentially high-risk, the Spanish authorities would be entitled to put in place effective controls such as regulatory, licensing or supervision mechanisms to address the potential risk implied.

It appears from the available information that no project of the nature described by the Honourable Member is currently in the process of being authorised by the Spanish authorities. The Commission cannot determine whether or not EU legislation has been correctly applied in relation with a possible future project and, therefore, cannot intervene in this case at this early stage, when the relevant provisions of EC law are not yet applicable. In view of the absence of a project or any indication that the Spanish authorities would not correctly apply the relevant EU legislation, should authorisation for any such project be sought, the Commission considers that this case does not warrant, at present, a request of information from the Spanish authorities.

(Versión española)

Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-000716/13

a la Comisión

Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE)

(24 de enero de 2013)

Asunto: Derecho a la información en España en relación al proyecto Eurovegas

En el proceso para la instalación del complejo «Eurovegas» en la Comunidad de Madrid se están vulnerando presumiblemente los derechos a una buena administración y la transparencia reconocidos y garantizados por la legislación europea, por ejemplo, mediante la Directiva 2003/4/CE del Parlamento Europeo y del Consejo, de 28 de enero de 2003, relativa al acceso del público a la información medioambiental o la Directiva 2003/35/CE del Parlamento Europeo y del Consejo, de 26 de mayo de 2003, por la que se establecen medidas para la participación del público en la elaboración de determinados planes y programas relacionados con el medio ambiente.

Pese a la obligatoriedad derivada del Derecho comunitario de ofrecer garantías de acceso a la información al público y, en especial, dado el impacto que tendrá el desarrollo de un proyecto de tales características en numerosos sectores, la falta de información sobre las reformas legales de toda índole que ha acometido la Comunidad de Madrid es más que notoria. Así, todo el proceso de negociaciones previas para la futura instalación del macroproyecto «Eurovegas» en la Comunidad de Madrid se ha producido en ausencia total de transparencia, sin las mínimas garantías de información. Finalmente, el 29 de diciembre de  2012 se publicaba en el Boletín Oficial de la Comunidad de Madrid la Ley 8/2012, de 28 de diciembre, de Medidas Fiscales y Administrativas, mediante la cual y con un proceso de aprobación acelerada se aprobaban numerosas medidas tendentes a materializar los compromisos adquiridos con el promotor de «Eurovegas», Sheldon Adelson, incluyendo trascendentes reformas en el régimen fiscal, urbanístico y del juego cuyo fin último es facilitar la instalación del proyecto «Eurovegas» en la Comunidad de Madrid. Se sigue así una política de hechos consumados, totalmente opaca y que puede generar indefensión de la ciudadanía. Por todo ello:

¿Cree la Comisión que en todo el proceso que se está desarrollando para la instalación futura —pero cada vez más patente, como demuestran las medidas aprobadas por la Ley 8/2012— del macroproyecto, destinado en su parte principal a casinos de juego, se están respetando los derechos a una buena administración, transparencia e información a la ciudadanía conforme a la legislación europea?

¿Ha requerido la Comisión información a España sobre las normativas aprobadas con respecto al futuro proyecto «Eurovegas» para su incorporación a la investigación preliminar abierta a raíz de la Petición 0555/2012 al Parlamento Europeo?

Respuesta del Sr. Potočnik en nombre de la Comisión

(26 de marzo de 2013)

De la información facilitada por Su Señoría se desprende que, en la actualidad, las autoridades españolas no están tramitando la autorización de tal proyecto.

Habida cuenta de tal circunstancia, la Comisión no está en condiciones de solicitar información a las autoridades españolas sobre este asunto.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000716/13

to the Commission

Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE)

(24 January 2013)

Subject: Right to information in Spain in respect of the Eurovegas project

In the process to install the ‘Eurovegas’ complex in the Autonomous Community of Madrid there is an ostensible violation of the rights to transparency and good administration, recognised and guaranteed under such European legislation as Directive 2003/4/EC, dated 28 January 2003, of the European Parliament and of the Council, regarding public access to environmental information, and Directive 2003/35/EC, dated 26 May 2003, of the European Parliament and of the Council, providing for public participation in respect of the drawing up of certain plans and programmes relating to the environment.

Despite the obligation under Community law to provide the public with guarantees of access to information and given, in particular, the impact that development of a project of this nature will have on many sectors, the lack of information about legal reforms of all kinds carried out by the Autonomous Community of Madrid is quite flagrant. The entire negotiating process prior to future installation of the ‘Eurovegas’ macro-project in the Autonomous Community of Madrid has thus taken place with a complete lack of transparency and without the minimum guarantees of information. Finally, Law 8/2012, of 28 December 2012, on Fiscal and Administrative Measures, was published on 29 December 2012 in the Official Bulletin of the Madrid Autonomous Community. Under this law, by means of a fast-track approval procedure, many measures were adopted to deliver on the commitments made to the ‘Eurovegas’ promoter, Sheldon Adelson, including very significant reforms to the tax, town planning and gaming systems, with the ultimate aim of facilitating installation of the ‘Eurovegas’ project in the Autonomous Community of Madrid. This is a fait accompli policy, totally lacking in transparency and threatening to leave the public in a defenceless situation. In view of the above:

Does the Commission believe that the entire process being pursued for a future, but — as seen in the measures adopted by Law 8/2012 — ever more likely, installation of this macro-project, comprising mainly gaming casinos, complies with the rights to good administration, transparency and public information in accordance with European law?

Has the Commission demanded information from Spain on the regulations approved in relation to the future ‘Eurovegas’ project, with a view to including them in the preliminary enquiry to be made as a result of Petition 0555/2012 to the European Parliament?

Answer given by Mr Potočnik on behalf of the Commission

(26 March 2013)

It appears from the information provided by the Honourable Member that no such project is currently in the process of being authorised by the Spanish authorities.

Given this, the Commission is not in the position to request information from the Spanish authorities on this subject.

(Slovenské znenie)

Otázka na písomné zodpovedanie E-000717/13

Komisii

Monika Smolková (S&D)

(24. januára 2013)

Vec: Európa pre občanov, opatrenie 1.2 – siete medzi partnerskými mestami

V rámci programu Európa pre občanov, opatrenie 1.2 – siete medzi partnerskými mestami v roku 2012 bolo z 21 podporených projektov päť z jednej krajiny – Talianska, ďalšie tri z Maďarska a zo Slovenska ani jeden.

Prečo sa granty nerozdeľujú proporcionálne medzi jednotlivé štáty a aké kritéria boli použité, keď Taliansku boli pridelené finančné prostriedky na päť projektov a Slovensku ani na jeden?

Odpoveď pani Redingovej v mene Komisie

(22. marca 2013)

Komisia by chcela zdôrazniť, že granty v rámci programu Európa pre občanov sa prideľujú na základe zásad transparentnosti, rovnakého zaobchádzania a nediskriminácie (129). Počas výberového konania každý projektový návrh hodnotia dvaja nezávislí odborníci, ktorí sa vyberajú prostredníctvom verejnej výzvy na vyjadrenie záujmu. Projekty sa potom zoraďujú podľa kvalitatívnych a kvantitatívnych kritérií na vyhodnotenie ponúk, ktoré sú jasne opísané v programovej príručke (130). Po zohľadnení dostupného rozpočtu vo vzťahu k počtu žiadostí sa schváli financovanie iba tým projektom, ktoré dosiahli najvyššie hodnotenie.

Pokiaľ ide konkrétne o Slovensko, Komisia by chcela zdôrazniť, že zo Slovenska prichádza v rámci programu „Európa pre občanov“ piaty najvyšší počet žiadostí spomedzi všetkých krajín. V roku 2012 slovenskí uchádzači predložili v rámci programu Európa pre občanov približne 260 žiadostí o financovanie projektov, z ktorých získalo podporu približne 18 %, pričom miera úspešnosti Talianska predstavovala 12 % a Maďarska 16 %.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000717/13

to the Commission

Monika Smolková (S&D)

(24 January 2013)

Subject: Europe for Citizens, Measure 1.2 — Networks of Twinned Towns

In 2012, 21 projects received support under the Europe for Citizens programme’s Measure 1.2 — Networks of Twinned Towns. Five of these projects were in just one country — Italy, while Hungary had three projects and Slovakia had none.

Why are these grants not distributed proportionally among the Member States?

What criteria were applied given that Italy was allocated funding for five projects and Slovakia did not receive funding for any projects?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(22 March 2013)

The Commission wishes to highlight that the attribution of grants under the Europe for Citizens Programme is organised following the principles of transparency, equal treatment and non-discrimination (131). Throughout the selection procedures project proposals undergo a double evaluation by independent experts who are selected on the basis of an open call for expression of interest. Projects are then ranked according to the qualitative and quantitative award criteria clearly stated in the Programme Guide (132). Taking into consideration the available budget in relation to the number of applications, only the projects having reached the highest score can be retained for funding.

Regarding the specific situation of Slovakia, the Commission wishes to underline that Slovakia is the 5th applying country within the ‘Europe for Citizens’ programme. In 2012, about 260 applications were submitted by Slovak stakeholders within the Europe for Citizens Programme, from which about 18% of projects were granted, whereas the success rates for Italy and Hungary were 12% and 16% respectively.

(Versione italiana)

Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-000719/13

alla Commissione

Mario Borghezio (EFD)

(24 gennaio 2013)

Oggetto: Sostegno dell'innovazione tecnologica automobilistica da parte della Commissione

Le automobili europee presentano uno svantaggio temporale rispetto alle tecnologie informatiche in uso, con un ritardo nella loro applicazione dovuto al ciclo di costruzione di 4-5 anni rispetto alle evoluzioni della tecnologia informatica che segue un ciclo di circa sei mesi.

1.

Ha la Commissione analizzato se le tecnologie digitali applicate negli Stati membri seguendo le direttive comunitarie, in particolare nel settore della sicurezza dei trasporti, siano in qualche modo inficiate da questo gap tecnologico?

2.

Come intende promuovere la Commissione una migliore cooperazione fra settore innovativo e tecnologico e settore automobilistico per rilanciare il mercato automobilistico europeo e renderlo competitivo rispetto alle produzioni extraeuropee?

Risposta di Neelie Kroes a nome della Commissione

(13 marzo 2013)

Il Piano d'azione della Commissione per la diffusione di sistemi di trasporto intelligenti in Europa (133) è stato sviluppato per garantire una più rapida diffusione delle tecnologie digitali nell'Unione europea, in particolare per la sicurezza dei trasporti su strada. Attualmente è in corso la revisione intermedia del Piano d'azione, che dovrebbe portare a una nuova proposta legislativa volta ad evitare ritardi nella realizzazione del Piano riconducibili ai diversi cicli di sviluppo delle tecnologie dell'informazione e della comunicazione (TIC) e dell'industria automobilistica. La revisione prenderà in esame anche altri impedimenti che rallentano lo sviluppo di tecnologie avanzate basate sulle TIC per la sicurezza dei trasporti su strada e della mobilità. La Commissione ha sostenuto la cooperazione tra i due settori nell'ambito dei programmi di lavoro per la ricerca sulle TIC e del partenariato pubblico-privato nell'iniziativa europea per le auto verdi.

Nella sua proposta di decisione del Consiglio che stabilisce un programma specifico recante attuazione del programma quadro di ricerca e innovazione (2014-2020) — Orizzonte 2020 (134), la Commissione intende sostenere le attività nei settori della mobilità connessa e dell'automazione, nei quali si prevede una pronta adozione delle TIC da parte dei produttori di automobili, degli operatori dei trasporti e delle comunità interessate.

La piattaforma iMobility Forum continuerà ad agevolare la cooperazione tra i soggetti portatori di interesse. Le imprese propongono di proseguire l'iniziativa europea per le auto verdi puntando più decisamente sui veicoli elettrici nell'ambito del programma «Orizzonte 2020». Infine, il partenariato europeo per l'innovazione «Città e comunità intelligenti» (135) offrirà opportunità per una più stretta collaborazione tra il settore delle TIC e quello automobilistico.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000719/13

to the Commission

Mario Borghezio (EFD)

(24 January 2013)

Subject: Commission support for technical innovation in the automotive industry

European motor cars suffer from a temporal disadvantage with regard to the information technologies used, with a delay in their application caused by the four-to-five-year construction cycle, compared with the evolution of the information technologies themselves, which follows a cycle of approximately six months.

1.

Has the Commission analysed whether the digital technologies applied in the Member States in accordance with Community directives, particularly in the transport safety sector, are invalidated to some degree by this technology gap?

2.

How does the Commission intend to encourage better cooperation between the innovation and technology sector and the automotive industry in order to boost the European automotive market and make it competitive with non-EU production?

Answer given by Ms Kroes on behalf of the Commission

(13 March 2013)

The Commission’s Intelligent Transport Systems Action Plan (ITS Action Plan) (136) has been developed to ensure faster deployment of digital technologies in the European Union in particular for the sake of road transport safety. At present the ITS Action Plan is undergoing its mid-term review. The review is expected to comprise a new legislative proposal on how to avoid delays in ITS deployment caused by different development cycles in Information and Communication technologies (ICT) and automotive industries. It will also touch upon other obstacles, which delay rolling-out of advanced ICT-based safety technologies for road transport and mobility. The Commission has supported cooperation between both sectors under the ICT research work programmes and the European Green Cars Initiative public-private partnership.

In its proposal for a Council Decision establishing a Specific Programme Implementing Horizon 2020 — The framework Programme for Research and Innovation (2014-2020) (137), the Commission plans to support activities in the areas of connected mobility and automation — areas in which swift take-up of ICT by vehicle manufacturers, transport operators and communities is expected.

The iMobility Forum stakeholder platform will continue facilitating cooperation between the involved parties. The continuation of the Green Cars Initiative with a strong focus on electro-mobility is being proposed by industrial stakeholders under Horizon 2020. Furthermore the Smart Cities and Communities European Innovation Partnership (138) will offer opportunities for closer cooperation between the ICT and automotive sector.

(Versione italiana)

Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-000720/13

alla Commissione

Mario Borghezio (EFD)

(24 gennaio 2013)

Oggetto: La Commissione deve sorvegliare gli hedge fund americani nell'UE

Gli hedge fund americani, a dispetto di quanto avvenuto nel 2008, continuano a non essere regolamentati dalla SEC, la commissione di controllo della borsa di New York, ma anzi hanno diminuito il loro grado di trasparenza diventando ancora più pericolosi, generando scandali e spesso andando in dissesto, con una perdita media registrata nel 2011 del 5 %. Il problema è dato dal fatto che gli hedge fund americani manovrano una cifra pari a 2.000 miliardi di dollari e, proprio a causa della mancanza di regolamentazione sui mercati finanziari americani, sono in costante aumento.

1.

Ciò premesso, può la Commissione far sapere quali azioni ha intrapreso per evitare shock di mercato nell'UE dovuti a manovre speculative da parte di questi fondi?

2.

La Commissione intende avviare un dialogo con gli Stati Uniti in merito a una regolamentazione, almeno de minimis, su tali fondi?

3.

La Commissione ha esaminato il loro impatto sulle borse europee e ne può dare documentazione?

Risposta di Michel Barnier a nome della Commissione

(19 marzo 2013)

La Commissione cerca di assicurare che la cooperazione tra le autorità di vigilanza competenti dell’UE porti a individuare e affrontare l’esposizione degli istituti di importanza sistemica agli hedge fund. Possono anche essere imposte misure come le restrizioni alla leva finanziaria, qualora esse contribuiscano ad accrescere il rischio sistemico o il rischio di turbolenze sui mercati.

I gestori degli hedge fund americani non ricevono il passaporto europeo per commercializzare i loro fondi nell’Unione europea fino a quando la Commissione non ha ricevuto parere positivo dall’AESFEM (139) e accertato che siano garantiti gli obiettivi della direttiva sui GEFIA (140), ossia la tutela dell’integrità del mercato e la risposta al rischio sistemico. La Commissione collaborerà strettamente con le autorità americane nel controllo degli hedge fund che operano in Europa.

Anche in assenza di passaporto europeo, la direttiva sui GEFIA dispone che i gestori degli hedge fund americani osservino gli obblighi di trasparenza e di segnalazione per commercializzare i loro fondi nei singoli Stati membri. Nel caso in cui ricevano il passaporto europeo, i gestori di hedge fund americani saranno tenuti a ottenere l’autorizzazione per commercializzare i fondi nell’UE e a osservare le principali disposizioni della direttiva sui GEFIA. Tali misure permetteranno alla Commissione e alle autorità competenti dell’UE di esercitare una migliore vigilanza degli hedge fund nei mercati finanziari e di intervenire quando necessario.

Durante i lavori preparatori e nei documenti di accompagnamento dell’iniziativa legislativa relativa ai GEFIA (141), la Commissione ha individuato ed esaminato l’impatto degli operatori del mercato rientranti nel campo di applicazione dell’iniziativa, inclusi gli hedge fund americani.

Le norme sulle vendite allo scoperto e sui credit default swap (CDS) (142) sono divenute applicabili dal 1° novembre 2012 e si applicano agli hedge fund americani nel caso di vendita allo scoperto di strumenti finanziari o di debito sovrano dell’UE. Queste norme consentono di far fronte al rischio di turbolenze sui mercati derivante dalle vendite allo scoperto.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000720/13

to the Commission

Mario Borghezio (EFD)

(24 January 2013)

Subject: The Commission should monitor American hedge funds in the EU

Despite the events of 2008, American hedge funds are still not regulated by the SEC, the regulatory authority for the New York Stock Exchange, but have actually reduced their level of transparency and become even more dangerous, causing scandals and often falling into ruin, with an average loss of 5 % recorded in 2011. The problem is caused by the fact that American hedge funds handle a total of USD 2 000 billion and, precisely because of the lack of regulation on the American financial markets, they are constantly growing.

1.

Can the Commission state what actions it has taken to avoid market shocks in the EU caused by speculative manoeuvrings by these funds?

2.

Does the Commission intend to open a dialogue with the United States concerning the regulation, even if minimal, of these funds?

3.

Has the Commission examined their impact on the European stock markets, and can it provide documentation for this?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(19 March 2013)

The Commission seeks to ensure that supervisory cooperation between EU competent authorities identifies and addresses the exposure of systemically important institutions to hedge funds. Measures, such as restrictions on leverage, may also be imposed if leverage leads to the build-up of systemic risk or risks of disorderly markets.

Managers of US hedge funds are not given an EU passport to market their funds in the EU until the Commission has received positive advice from ESMA (143) and has ensured that the objectives of the AIFMD (144), such as ensuring market integrity and addressing systemic risk, have been achieved. The Commission will cooperate closely with US authorities in supervising hedge funds that operate in Europe.

Even in the absence of an EU passport, the AIFMD requires US hedge fund managers to comply with disclosure and reporting requirements in order to market their funds in individual Member States. In the event that an EU passport should become available for such managers, US hedge fund managers will also be required to obtain authorisation in the EU and comply with all key provisions of the AIFMD. These measures will allow the Commission and EU competent authorities to better supervise hedge funds in the financial markets and intervene when necessary.

The Commission identified and examined the impact of the market participants falling within the scope of this legislative initiative, including US hedge funds, in its preparatory work and in the documents accompanying this initiative (145).

The rules on short selling and CDS (146) entered into application on 1 November 2012 and apply to US hedge funds when they short sell EU financial instruments or sovereign debt. These rules address the risk of disorderly markets with regard to short selling.

(Versione italiana)

Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-000721/13

alla Commissione

Mario Borghezio (EFD)

(24 gennaio 2013)

Oggetto: La Commissione riveda i suoi parametri sui pesticidi

Il documento tecnico presentato dalla direzione generale Salute e Consumatori (DG Sanco) della Commissione Europea porta a una sottostima sistematica dei tassi di pesticidi residui rilevati sugli alimenti, imponendo di dimezzare, in caso di incertezza, il valore minore rilevato. Di fatto, questo comporterebbe che i residui di pesticidi sarebbero rilevati solo qualora superassero di due volte i valori previsti. Le soglie previste in passato erano già considerate eccessive dai servizi sanitari: tale ulteriore riduzione rischia di compromettere la salute dei cittadini europei.

1.

La Commissione non ritiene che tale algoritmo crei un rischio serio per la salute dei cittadini?

2.

La Commissione intende rivedere questi parametri?

Risposta di Tonio Borg a nome della Commissione

(11 marzo 2013)

La Commissione desidera rassicurare l'onorevole deputato sul fatto che gli algoritmi usati per interpretare le misure dei residui di pesticidi non presentano un rischio per i consumatori. Tali algoritmi variano a seconda delle finalità, vale a dire la valutazione del rischio per i consumatori o il rispetto del livello massimo di residui (LMR).

Il superamento di un LMR non significa che vi sia una criticità a carico dei consumatori. Gli LMR per i pesticidi non sono fissati al livello più alto di esposizione accettabile per gli umani, ma al più basso livello raggiungibile in linea con le buone pratiche agricole. Pertanto, il superamento di un LMR non porta, nella maggior parte dei casi, ad un rischio per i consumatori.

Per tutelare i consumatori, all'atto di calcolare l'esposizione dei consumatori e i rischi tossicologici, i laboratori usano il valore misurato e non il valore che si ricava sottraendo l'incertezza di misura.

Di converso, all'atto di dimostrare un mancato rispetto dell'LMR a fini repressivi, è necessario avere un margine di confidenza che è offerto dall'incertezza di misura.

Il documento orientativo della DG SANCO sulle procedure di convalida dei metodi e di controllo della qualità suggerisce per ciascun laboratorio, per l'interpretazione dei risultati a fini repressivi, l'applicazione di un'incertezza di misura per difetto pari al 50 % in assenza di un calcolo più preciso. Nella pratica, molti laboratori applicano un fattore più ridotto, a seconda del loro rendimento.

L'applicazione dell'incertezza di misura è un requisito essenziale della norma internazionale sull'accreditamento dei laboratori (ISO/IEC 17025). La legislazione UE sui controlli ufficiali fa obbligo ai laboratori di controllo nazionali di ottemperare a tale norma.

Per tali motivi la Commissione non intende per ora rivedere tali parametri.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000721/13

to the Commission

Mario Borghezio (EFD)

(24 January 2013)

Subject: Call for the Commission to review its parameters on pesticides

The technical document presented by the European Commission’s Directorate General for Health and Consumers (DG Sanco) involves a systematic underestimation of the levels of pesticide residues identified in foodstuffs, calling for a halving, in the event of any uncertainty, of the lowest value identified. This would mean that the pesticide residues would be identified only if they were double the established values. The thresholds previously in force were already regarded as excessive by the health services, and this further reduction risks compromising the health of European citizens.

1.

Does the Commission not believe that this algorithm would create a serious risk for citizens’ health?

2.

Does the Commission intend to review these parameters?

Answer given by Mr Borg on behalf of the Commission

(11 March 2013)

The Commission would like to reassure the Honourable Member that the algorithms used for interpreting measurements of pesticide residues do not present a risk for consumers. These algorithms differ depending on the purpose, i.e. consumer risk assessment or maximum residue level (MRL) compliance.

The exceedance of an MRL does not mean that there is a consumer concern. Pesticide MRLs are not set at the highest level of acceptable exposure for humans but at the lowest achievable level consistent with good agricultural practice. Therefore, an MRL exceedance will in most cases not lead to any consumer risk.

To protect consumers, when calculating the consumer exposure and the toxicological risks, laboratories use the value as measured and not the value less the measurement uncertainty.

In contrast, when demonstrating MRL non-compliances for enforcement purposes, it is necessary to have a margin of confidence, which is offered by the measurement uncertainty.

The SANCO Guidance document on Method Validation and Quality Control Procedures suggests, for the interpretation of results for enforcement purposes, the application of a default measurement uncertainty of 50%, in the absence of a more precise calculation for each single laboratory. In practice many laboratories apply a lower factor, depending on their performance.

The application of the measurement uncertainty is a key requirement of the international standard on laboratory accreditation (ISO/IEC 17025). The EU legislation on official controls requires national control laboratories to comply with this standard.

For these reasons, the Commission does currently not intend to review the guidance.

(Versión española)

Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-000722/13

a la Comisión (Vicepresidenta/Alta Representante)

Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL)

(24 de enero de 2013)

Asunto: VP/HR — Atentado en Araucanía y militarización de la zona

El pasado 4 de enero se produjo un ataque que incendió la casa de la familia terrateniente Luchsinger — Mckay produciendo la muerte del matrimonio. Dicho ataque ha permitido al Gobierno chileno establecer la militarización de la región de la Araucanía con 400 carabineros. Se está señalando indirectamente como autores a los movimientos mapuches que llevan años reclamando sus tierras ancestrales.

El convenio 169 de la OIT sobre los derechos de los pueblos indígenas y tribales en Estados independientes recoge varios artículos sobre el derecho a la tierra que los Estados deben garantizar para estas comunidades. En el caso de la comunidad mapuche de Chile, este convenio no está siendo puesto en práctica por el Gobierno de Chile. El artículo 14.3 promulga que «Deberán instituirse procedimientos adecuados en el marco del sistema jurídico nacional para solucionar las reivindicaciones de tierras formuladas por los pueblos interesados» y esto no se cumple a luz de los hechos presentados. Chile, como país firmante del Convenio 169, está incumpliendo su compromiso con el Derecho internacional.

Dichos movimientos mapuches han sido golpeados previamente por la estrategia de criminalización del Estado chileno, que con una represiva Ley Antiterrorista mantiene encarcelados a cientos de activistas del pueblo mapuche. Con este último hecho violento el Gobierno pretende militarizar la zona y aplicar la Ley Antiterrorista para « garantizar la seguridad » , lo que supondrá un inevitable incremento de la violencia en la región. El Estado chileno debe tratar de aplicar la justicia con igualdad y no utilizar el Estado de Derecho para mantener ocupaciones de tierras contrarias al Derecho internacional.

Muchas fuerzas políticas del país aprovechan el atentado para identificar la causa mapuche con dicho atentado, mientras que sin una negociación amparada en el cumplimiento del Derecho internacional no podrá haber una salida que no lleve a un incremento de la violencia en la Araucanía.

1.

¿Piensa interceder la Vicepresidenta/Alta Representante para evitar una mayor militarización de la zona que agrave el conflicto mapuche?

2.

¿Se está supervisando el cumplimiento del convenio 169 de la OIT o el establecimiento de negociaciones al respecto para que el Gobierno chileno cumpla la cláusula segunda del Acuerdo de Asociación de la UE con Chile?

Respuesta de la Alta Representante/Vicepresidenta Ashton en nombre de la Comisión

(15 de marzo de 2013)

1.

La Comisión lamenta el incendio provocado del pasado 4 de enero, que se saldó con la muerte de Bernard Luchsinger y Vivianne Mackay, así como otros incendios provocados en la región de Araucanía. La violencia no contribuirá a hacer avanzar los derechos de los mapuches y otros pueblos indígenas chilenos y todas las partes deberían entablar un diálogo pacífico para encontrar soluciones políticas a agravios antiguos. La Comisión entiende que se están llevando a cabo esfuerzos para buscar soluciones políticas en asuntos fundamentales como la restitución de tierras ancestrales, el agua y otros derechos. El Instituto Nacional de Derechos Humanos de Chile está investigando actualmente presuntas violaciones de los derechos humanos e interviene oportunamente ante las autoridades. La Delegación de la UE sigue de cerca la situación.

2.

La cuestión del cumplimiento del Convenio n° 169 de la OIT incumbe a la Organización Internacional del Trabajo. No obstante, la Comisión informa a Su Señoría de que los derechos de los pueblos indígenas, incluida la aplicación del Convenio n° 169 de la OIT, se tratan normalmente en las conversaciones entre la UE y Chile, especialmente en el marco del diálogo sobre derechos humanos locales y las reuniones del Comité de Asociación UE-Chile. Se ha mantenido un diálogo sobre estas cuestiones con organizaciones de la sociedad civil y otros organismos pertinentes, tales como el Instituto Nacional de Derechos Humanos. La Comisión seguirá dialogando con las autoridades chilenas sobre una serie de temas, incluidos los derechos humanos y, en particular, los derechos humanos de los mapuches y otros indígenas chilenos, en el marco y el espíritu del artículo 12 del Acuerdo de Asociación.

Además de los cambios periódicos de impresiones con las autoridades chilenas, la UE financia varios proyectos en el ámbito de la democracia y los derechos humanos.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000722/13

to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)

Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL)

(24 January 2013)

Subject: VP/HR — Attack in Araucanía and militarisation of the region

On 4 January, an attack took place setting fire to the house of the landowning Luchsinger–McKay family and causing the couple’s death. This attack allowed the Chilean government to militarise the Araucanía region with 400 police officers. The Mapuche movements, which have been claiming their ancestral lands for years, are being blamed indirectly.

International Labour Organisation (ILO) Convention 169, concerning the rights of Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries, includes several Articles on the right to land that States must guarantee these communities. This Convention is not being implemented by the Chilean Government in the case of the Mapuche community in Chile. Article 14.3 states that ‘Adequate procedures shall be established within the national legal system to resolve land claims by the peoples concerned’. The facts presented show a failure to comply with this article. Chile, as a signatory of Convention 169, is failing to comply with its commitment to international law.

The Mapuche movements have already been hit by the Chilean State’s criminalisation strategy, which uses a repressive Anti-terrorist Law to keep hundreds of indigenous Mapuche activists in jail. This latest violent episode is being used by the Government to militarise the region and to apply the Anti-terrorist Law in order to ‘guarantee security’, causing an inevitable increase in violence in the region. The Chilean State must endeavour to apply justice with equality and not use the rule of law to maintain land occupations contrary to international law.

Many political groupings in the country are taking advantage of the attack to identify it with the Mapuche cause, but without negotiations under international law, the outcome can only lead to increased violence in Araucanía.

1.

Does the Vice-President/High Representative intend to intercede to avoid a greater militarisation of the region which would aggravate the Mapuche conflict?

2.

Is there monitoring of compliance with ILO Convention 169, or the establishment of negotiations in this respect, to ensure that the Chilean Government complies with Article 2 of the Association Agreement between the EU and Chile?

Answer given by High Representative/Vice-President Ashton on behalf of the Commission

(15 March 2013)

1.

The Commission regrets the arson attack of 4 January, which resulted in the deaths of Bernard Luchsinger and Vivianne Mackay, and other subsequent arson attacks in the Araucanía region. Violence will not help to advance the rights of the Mapuche and other indigenous Chileans, and all sides should engage in peaceful dialogue to build political solutions to long-standing grievances. The Commission understands that efforts are now underway to find political solutions to key issues such as the restitution of ancestral lands, water and other rights. Chile's National Institute for Human Rights is currently investigating alleged human rights abuses and making relevant interventions with the authorities. The EU Delegation is following the situation.

2.

The question of compliance with ILO Convention 169 is a matter for the International Labour Organisation. The Commission wishes to inform the Honourable Member, nevertheless, that indigenous rights, including the implementation of ILO Convention 169, are discussed by the EU and Chile on a regular basis, notably through the local Human Rights Dialogue and the meetings of the EU-Chile Association Committee. Discussions on these matters have also been held with civil society organisations and other relevant bodies such as the National Institute for Human Rights. The Commission will continue to engage in dialogue with the Chilean authorities on a range of issues including human rights and in particular the human rights of the Mapuche and other indigenous Chileans, in the framework and spirit of Article 12 of the Association Agreement.

In addition to the regular exchanges of views with the Chilean authorities , a number of projects funded by the EC in the field of democracy and human rights.

(Versión española)

Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-000723/13

a la Comisión (Vicepresidenta/Alta Representante)

Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL)

(24 de enero de 2013)

Asunto: VP/HR — Intervención militar de Francia en Mali

El pasado 20 de diciembre el Consejo de Seguridad de la ONU aprobó una resolución en la que se solicitaba la intervención de una fuerza militar internacional en el norte de Mali. El Gobierno de Mali solicitó formalmente la intervención de la Comunidad Económica de Estados del África Occidental (Cedeao) el pasado septiembre para atacar la zona norte del país, controlada por diferentes grupos armados.

La situación política de Mali se encuentra en una encrucijada, dado que el actual Gobierno interino, llegado tras el golpe de Estado del pasado marzo, no es capaz de controlar a los grupos tuareg y yihadistas que han tomado el control de la región norte del país. La incapacidad del Gobierno para controlar la región fue la razón argumentada por los militares en el pasado golpe de Estado; pese a haberse instalado un nuevo Gobierno, la región continúa sin estar controlada. Con una inestable situación política y la sombra del temido yihadismo islámico, la intervención occidental, en este caso por parte de Francia, no se ha hecho esperar.

El Gobierno francés decidió comenzar la intervención militar en apoyo del actual Gobierno interino de Mali el pasado 11 de enero, continuando con la tradición colonial del país en el continente africano. Las fuerzas militares francesas nunca han « terminado » de abandonar el continente y en los últimos años han intervenido en prácticamente todos los conflictos en el continente. Esta situación de militarización del continente solo produce un agravamiento de las condiciones para una estabilización de las diferentes regiones. En el caso de África Occidental, la intervención en Libia, también iniciada con la intervención del ejército francés, ha supuesto el recrudecimiento de la situación en Mali; numerosos grupos tuareg vinculados al antiguo gobierno del General Gaddafi participaron en el conflicto y tras el fin de las operaciones militares en territorio libio pasaron la frontera y reclaman la liberación del Azawad, territorio al norte del país.

Esta extensión de los conflictos en el continente africano responde al incremento de la intervención militar occidental. Resulta obvio que, como los grupos rebeldes de Mali han comenzado a incrementar su fuerza tras la intervención en Libia, la nueva intervención en Mali solo servirá para extender dicho conflicto hacia nuevas fronteras.

¿Estudia la Vicepresidenta/Alta Representante las consecuencias que tendrá la intervención francesa en Mali y la desestabilización que traerá en la región? Considerando que el país dispone de un Gobierno interino fruto de un golpe de Estado ¿considera a éste legítimo para solicitar una intervención militar a la comunidad internacional? ¿Qué medidas impulsará la Vicepresidenta/Alta Representante para restablecer un gobierno democrático en Mali?

Respuesta de la Alta Representante y Vicepresidenta Ashton en nombre de la Comisión

(3 de abril de 2013)

Desde el inicio de la crisis de Mali, la UE actúa en estrecha colaboración con la Cedeao, la UA y la Organización de las Naciones Unidas.

En este contexto y de acuerdo con la mediación francesa, son reconocidas como autoridades legítimas de la transición el Presidente en funciones Dioncounda Traoré y su gobierno de unidad nacional, que tienen la responsabilidad de aplicar la hoja de ruta para el restablecimiento del orden constitucional, además de un marco de diálogo nacional con vistas a la resolución de la crisis del norte del país.

Mientras tenía lugar este proceso de negociación, las fuerzas de Mali sufrieron un ataque de grupos terroristas, que supuso una amenaza para el propio Estado de Mali, los paises vecinos y ciudadanos europeos. En sus conclusiones de 17 de enero, el Consejo manifestó de inmediato su apoyo a la respuesta, a petición de Mali, de Francia en el marco de la legalidad internacional, en particular, la Resolución 2085 del CSNU. Este planteamiento es compartido por la UA y por el Grupo internacional de Apoyo y Seguimiento a Mali, que se reunió en Bruselas el 5 de febrero.

Mas allá de la gestión de la urgencia en términos de seguridad, la UE esta decidida a apoyar un proceso de retorno al orden constitucional lo mas rápido posible e impuso como condición para la reanudación de su cooperación, congelada tras el golpe de Estado (con excepción de la ayuda directa a la población), la reciente adopción de la hoja de ruta, que implica la celebración rápida de elecciones. Dicha reanudación será gradual y dependerá del avance real en este proceso. Asimismo, mediante la misión EUTM, la UE prevé prestar apoyo a la reestructuración del Ejercito de Mali.

La UE es plenamente consciente de la dimensión regional de la crisis. En el marco de la «Estrategia de la UE para la seguridad y el desarrollo en el Sahel», ha reforzado enormemente su ayuda humanitaria, al desarrollo y la seguridad.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000723/13

to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)

Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL)

(24 January 2013)

Subject: VP/HR — Military action by France in Mali

On 20 December the United Nations Security Council adopted a Resolution calling for the intervention of an international military force in northern Mali. The Malian Government formally requested the intervention of the Economic Community of West African States (Ecowas) in September to deal with the situation in the northern part of the country, which is controlled by different armed groups.

The political situation in Mali is at a crossroads because the current interim government, in power since the coup d’état in March, is incapable of controlling the Tuareg and jihadist groups that have taken control of the northern part of the country. The government’s inability to control the region was the reasoning used by the military forces in the previous coup d’état; despite having installed a new government, the region is still not controlled. With an unstable political situation, and under the shadow of the feared Islamist jihadism, Western intervention — in this case by France — has not been slow to come.

The French Government decided to begin military intervention to support Mali’s interim government on 11 January, continuing the country’s colonial tradition in the African continent. France’s military forces have never ‘completely’ left the continent and in recent years they have intervened in practically every conflict there. This ‘militarisation’ of the continent only serves to exacerbate the conditions preventing stabilisation of the different regions. In the case of West Africa, the intervention in Libya, which also began with the intervention of the French army, has made the situation in Mali even worse; numerous Tuareg groups linked to General Gaddafi’s former government took part in the conflict and, after the end of the military operations in Libyan territory, they crossed the border and demanded the liberation of Azawad, an area in the north of the country.

This spread of conflicts in the African continent is a reflection of the West’s increasing military intervention. It is obvious that, just as Mali’s rebel groups became more powerful after the intervention in Libya, the most recent intervention in Mali will only serve to extend this conflict to new areas.

Is the Vice-President/High Representative examining the consequences of the French intervention in Mali and the destabilisation that it will entail in the region? Given that Mali has an interim government that is the result of a coup d’état, does she feel that it is sufficiently legitimate to request military intervention from the international community? What measures will the Vice-President/High Representative promote in order to restore a democratic government in Mali?

(Version française)

Depuis le début de la crise au Mali, l'UE agit en étroite coordination avec la Cedeao, l'UA et l'ONU.

Dans ce cadre, et en ligne avec la médiation africaine, sont reconnus comme autorités légitimes de la Transition le Président par interim, Dioncounda Traoré et son gouvernement d'union nationale, qui ont la responsabilité de mettre en œuvre la Feuille de Route pour le retour à l'ordre constitutionnel mais aussi un cadre de dialogue national en vue de résoudre la crise au nord du pays.

Alors qu'il était engagé dans ce processus de négociation, les forces maliennes ont subi une attaque des groupes terroristes, menaçant l'État malien, les pays voisins et ressortissants européens. Dans ses conclusions du 17 janvier, le Conseil a immédiatement marqué son soutien à la réponse faite dans le cadre de la légalité internationale, notamment la résolution 2085 du CSNU, par la France, sur demande du Mali. Cette appréciation est partagée par l'UA et le Groupe international de suivi et de soutien au Mali qui s'est réuni à Bruxelles le 5 février.

Au-delà de la gestion de l'urgence sécuritaire, l'UE est déterminée à soutenir un processus de retour à l'ordre constitutionnel le plus rapide possible. Elle a conditionné la reprise de sa coopération gelée depuis le coup d'État (hors aide directe aux populations), à l'adoption récente de la Feuille de Route, qui comporte la tenue rapide d'élections. Cette reprise sera graduelle et fonction de progrès effectifs sur ce processus. De même, par la mission EUTM, l'UE envisage son appui à la restructuration de l'armée malienne.

L'UE est pleinement consciente de la dimension régionale de la crise. Dans le cadre de la «Stratégie de l'UE pour la sécurité et le développement au Sahel», elle a ainsi massivement renforcé son assistance humanitaire, de développment et sécuritaire.

(Versión española)

Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-000724/13

a la Comisión

Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL)

(24 de enero de 2013)

Asunto: Discriminación de la mujer en la legislación española en materia de pensiones

La pasada sentencia del Tribunal de Justicia de la Unión Europea referente al asunto C-385/11 dictamina que la legislación española en materia de jubilación contributiva es discriminatoria con las mujeres al contradecir la Directiva 79/7/CEE del Consejo, de 19 de diciembre de  1978, relativa a la aplicación progresiva del principio de igualdad de trato entre hombres y mujeres en materia de seguridad social.

El caso fue presentado por Isabel Elbal Moreno, trabajadora de la limpieza a tiempo parcial, que trabajó durante 18 años a tiempo parcial en una comunidad de propietarios española, cotizando 4 horas semanales. Según la legislación española, pese a haber trabajado tanto tiempo, la Sra. Elbal solo había cotizado 3 años, al ser solo computadas las horas de trabajo y no el periodo total; debería haber trabajado más de 100 años para alcanzar el derecho a recibir una pensión mínima. Esto supone requerir a los trabajadores que ostenten este tipo de contratos una cantidad proporcional de horas mayor que a los trabajadores fijos para alcanzar una pensión de jubilación para los trabajadores a tiempo parcial en España. Esta discriminación entre contratos fijos y a tiempo parcial sería legal si no existiese el principio de discriminación indirecta por el cual esta norma perjudica especialmente a las mujeres españolas.

El Tribunal de Justicia de la Unión Europea sostiene que existe este tipo de discriminación indirecta cuando una norma nacional, pese haber sido formulada de manera neutral, afecta de hecho a un número mucho mayor de mujeres que de hombres. En el caso de los contratos a tiempo parcial en España, esto se confirma de una manera clara al suponer las mujeres más de un 80 % de las personas con este tipo de contratos en el país. Teniendo en cuenta estos datos, el Tribunal ha confirmado la discriminación indirecta que sufren las mujeres españolas frente a los hombres en el mercado laboral, debido a la dificultad mayor para poder alcanzar la cotización minima que supone tener acceso a una pensión de jubilación.

Ante esta situación de discriminación de la mujer en el mercado laboral español:

¿Qué medidas está llevando a cabo la Comisión para obligar a España a cumplir la Directiva 79/7/CEE?

¿Contempla la Comisión la posibilidad de que este tipo de discriminación de la mujer se pueda estar llevando a cabo en los Estados miembros que tienen una alta feminización del trabajo a tiempo parcial? ¿Está actuando al respecto?

Respuesta de la Sra. Reding en nombre de la Comisión

(25 de marzo de 2013)

Según el principio de cooperación leal consagrado por el artículo 4 del Tratado de la Unión Europea, «los Estados miembros adoptarán todas las medidas generales o particulares apropiadas para asegurar el cumplimiento de las obligaciones derivadas de los Tratados o resultantes de los actos de las instituciones de la Unión». Por lo tanto, las autoridades españolas, incluidos los tribunales y el poder legislativo, están obligadas a ejecutar correctamente la sentencia mencionada.

En este momento, la Comisión no tiene motivos para creer que las autoridades españolas no estén dando cumplimiento a la sentencia del Tribunal. Si fuera el caso, la Comisión, en su calidad de garante de los tratados, tomaría las medidas necesarias para solucionar el problema.

En cuanto a la situación en otros Estados miembros en general, la Comisión está estudiando este tema y va a tomar una decisión sobre si hacen falta o no nuevas medidas en este momento. Además, si llegan al conocimiento de la Comisión situaciones concretas en que pueda existir esta clase de discriminaciones contra las mujeres, se pondrá en contacto con el Estado miembro correspondiente para resolver el asunto.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000724/13

to the Commission

Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL)

(24 January 2013)

Subject: Discrimination against women in Spanish pension legislation

The recent judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union in Case C-385/11 ruled that Spanish legislation on contributory pensions discriminates against women and is thus contrary to Council Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 on the progressive implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security.

The case was brought by Isabel Elbal Moreno, who worked for 18 years as a cleaner for a residents’ association on a part-time basis for four hours a week. Under Spanish legislation, despite having worked for such a long time, Mrs Elbal had only accrued three years of contributions as only the hours worked are taken into account, not the total period; she would have had to work for more than 100 years to obtain the right to a minimum pension. This means that workers subject to part-time contracts require a proportionally greater contribution period than full-time workers to qualify for a retirement pension. This discrimination between part-time and full-time workers would be legal if it were not for the principle of indirect discrimination, according to which this rule harms Spanish women in particular.

The Court of Justice of the European Union states that this type of indirect discrimination exists where a national measure, albeit formulated in neutral terms, works to the disadvantage of far more women than men. In the case of part-time contracts in Spain, this is indisputable given that more than 80 % of part-time workers in the country are women. In light of this information, the Court confirmed the existence of indirect discrimination against Spanish women in the labour market, given that it is more difficult for them to complete the minimum period of contribution required to obtain a retirement pension.

Given this discrimination against women in the Spanish labour market:

What measures is the Commission taking to force Spain to comply with Directive 79/7/EEC?

Does the Commission believe that this type of discrimination against women may exist in Member States that have a high proportion of women in part-time work? Is it taking any action in this regard?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(25 March 2013)

According to the principle of loyalty inscribed in Article 4 of the Treaty on European Union, ‘Member States shall take any appropriate measure, general or particular, to ensure fulfilment of the obligations arising out of the Treaties or resulting from the acts of the institutions of the Union’. Therefore, Spanish authorities, including Spanish courts and legislator, are under the obligation to implement appropriately the abovementioned judgment.

At this moment, the Commission has no reason to believe that the Spanish authorities will not comply with the Court's judgment. Should that be the case, the Commission, as guardian of the treaties, will take the necessary measures to correct the problem.

As to the situation in other Member States in general, the Commission is now looking into this matter and will decide whether or not further action is necessary at this stage. In addition, if the Commission is made aware of specific situations where this type of discrimination against women may exist, the Commission will contact the relevant Member State to address this issue.

(Versión española)

Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-000725/13

a la Comisión

Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL)

(24 de enero de 2013)

Asunto: Asunto: Mortalidad a causa de las privatizaciones en Europa del Este

Según el estudio « The human cost of economic policy » publicado en 2009 en la revista The Lancet, la privatización de los servicios públicos en los países pertenecientes a la antigua Unión Soviética tras la caída del muro produjo un coste humano de más de un millón de muertes de personas en edad de trabajar.

El estudio, dirigido por la Universidad de Oxford, sostiene que el proceso de privatizaciones masivas dado en los países del bloque soviético en la década de los 90 produjo un incremento en el número de muertes del 13 % de la población. El estudio toma los datos demográficos de 25 países y estudia la correlación de sus tasas de mortalidad con la agresiva política de privatización también conocida como la Terapia de Shock. Esta política económica supuso un incremento sin precedentes del desempleo al mismo tiempo que se desintegraban los servicios públicos básicos, desapareciendo la fuente de ingresos y los medios de supervivencia de los hogares.

El equipo de investigación tomó en cuenta el estudio de los datos referentes a las tasas de mortalidad de hombres en edad de trabajar disponibles en la Organización Mundial de la Salud al mismo tiempo que los disponibles en el Banco Europeo de Reconstrucción y Desarrollo, entidad que apoyó las políticas de privatización masiva de estos países.

1.

¿Está la Comisión teniendo en cuenta el citado estudio a la hora de elaborar las Recomendaciones específicas propuestas a los Estados miembros?

2.

Teniendo en cuenta que las políticas de austeridad llevadas a cabo por los Estados miembros se asemejan a la citada

Terapia de Shock,

¿qué coste en vidas humanas estima la Comisión que tendrá el desarrollo de sus Recomendaciones?

Respuesta del Sr. Rehn en nombre de la Comisión

(18 de marzo de 2013)

La Comisión toma nota de la información presentada y de las preguntas planteadas por Su Señoría.

La Comisión tiene en cuenta los aspectos relativos a la justicia en la reforma, así como el posible coste humano de la política económica, y destaca la necesidad de minimizar el impacto de la reforma y de proteger a los más vulnerables.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000725/13

to the Commission

Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL)

(24 January 2013)

Subject: Mortality due to privatisations in Eastern Europe

According to the study entitled ‘The human cost of economic policy’ published in the journal The Lancet in 2009, the privatisation of public services in the countries of the former Soviet Union after the fall of the wall had a human cost of more than one million deaths of working-age people.

This study, led by the University of Oxford, argues that the process of mass privatisations that occurred in the countries of the Soviet bloc during the 1990s produced an increase of 13 % in the number of deaths in the population. The study takes demographic data from 25 countries and studies the correlation between their rates of mortality and the aggressive privatisation policy also known as Shock Therapy. This economic policy gave rise to an unprecedented increase in unemployment at a time when basic public services were disintegrating, with the loss, for households, of their source of income and means of survival.

The research team took into consideration the study of data concerning rates of mortality amongst working age men available from the World Health Organisation and data from the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, the body which supported these countries’ mass privatisation policies.

1.

Is the Commission taking account of the aforementioned study when drawing up its specific recommendations for the Member States?

2.

Bearing in mind the fact that the austerity policies followed by the Member States are similar to the aforementioned Shock Therapy, what cost in human lives, in the Commission’s view, will following its recommendations have?

Answer given by Mr Rehn on behalf of the Commission

(18 March 2013)

The Commission takes note of the information provided and questions posed by Honourable Member.

The Commission takes into consideration the equity aspects of reform and the potential human cost of economic policy, emphasising the need to minimise the reform impact and protect the most vulnerable.

(Versión española)

Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-000726/13

a la Comisión

Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL)

(24 de enero de 2013)

Asunto: Implementación del Software libre en las Instituciones Europeas

Durante los últimos años el desarrollo de aplicaciones informáticas se ha desarrollado de una manera exponencial, llegando a alcanzarse una verdadera democratización del acceso a la informática. Gran parte de este resultado ha sido gracias al desarrollo del Software Libre por parte de numerosos participantes que prefieren compartir las aplicaciones que desarrollan.

Los diferentes programas desarrollados con Software Libre han alcanzado el nivel de competir sin ningún tipo de desventaja con las aplicaciones desarrolladas por los grandes « monstruos » de la informática, tales como la empresa Microsoft. Dicha empresa, que abusa continuamente de su posición de mercado, como ha declarado la propia Comisión que ha abierto un expediente sancionador contra la misma por incumplir un acuerdo alcanzado en 2009, continúa suministrando la práctica totalidad del software básico (sistemas operativos, hojas de cálculo, editores de texto…) de todas las instituciones europeas.

Dicho software privativo es perfectamente sustituible por Software Libre que es capaz de cumplir la gran mayoría de las exigencias de los usuarios de las instituciones europeas. Si bien existe software privativo específico que resulta indispensable para desarrollar la actividad de algunos servicios, la gran masa de licencias que las instituciones europeas adquieren son de software básico y de baja especialización que requieren los funcionarios para desarrollar su trabajo habitual.

La Comisión Europea se ha pronunciado a favor del Software Libre en diversas ocasiones y ha desarrollado diferentes proyectos como el OSOR o el EUPL y otros tantos proyectos. Pero, en la práctica, los trabajadores de las instituciones europeas se encuentran en la obligación de usar el sistema operativo de Microsoft e incluso se actualizan con nuevas licencias cuyos costes deben suponer millones de euros. En tiempo en los que se exige austeridad a gran parte de la población europea imponer el uso de un Software Libre para ahorrar millones de euros sin perder aplicaciones debería ser una obligación sin menoscabo de la adquisición de programas necesarios que no tengan sustitutos libres.

1.

¿Por qué la Comisión y el resto de instituciones europeas usan software como Microsoft Windows, Microsoft Office, etc existiendo aplicaciones gratuitas como Linux, Open Office, etc?

2.

¿Está la Comisión actuando para sustituir el software básico empleado en las instituciones europeas por Software Libre?

Respuesta del Sr. Šefčovič en nombre de la Comisión

(8 de marzo de 2013)

La Comisión remite a Su Señoría a las respuestas a otras preguntas escritas y orales (147) que plantearon problemas similares. Estas respuestas pueden resumirse como sigue:

La infraestructura informática de la Comisión se basa en una amplia y diversificada cartera de productos informáticos, en la que coexisten sin problemas el software comercial y el software de código abierto. La Comisión, por su parte, es una organización líder en el mundo en lo que respecta a la adopción de software de código abierto (148).

La Comisión sigue una rigurosa metodología para seleccionar la configuración del software adecuado en términos de aptitud para el uso y coste total derivado de la propiedad, garantizando al mismo tiempo la buena gestión financiera y el cumplimiento de las normas de contratación pública. Las decisiones adoptadas se revisan periódicamente (149).

En este contexto, es importante señalar que el software de código abierto no puede asimilarse a programas informáticos sin coste, y que cualquier comparación de costes entre software de código abierto y otros modelos empresariales debe basarse en el coste total derivado de la propiedad de cada solución; esto no solo incluye el coste de las licencias, sino también el de creación, mantenimiento, apoyo, formación y otros costes (150).

La configuración de referencia a disposición del personal de la Comisión debe mantenerse lo más homogénea posible para controlar los costes de mantenimiento de la infraestructura informática corporativa y mantener sus elementos de seguridad (151).

Las sanciones impuestas a Microsoft como consecuencia de sus infracciones de las normas de competencia de la UE no impide a esta compañía participar en los procedimientos de contratación (152).

La Comisión reexamina su estrategia ofimática periódicamente y en estrecho contacto con los departamentos informáticos de las demás instituciones de la UE, incluido el Parlamento Europeo, ya que prácticamente todos ellos están utilizando actualmente los mismos contratos marco en este ámbito.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000726/13

to the Commission

Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL)

(24 January 2013)

Subject: Implementing free software in the European institutions

There has been a boom in software development in recent years that has genuinely opened up access to IT. This wider access to IT has been largely thanks to the creation of free software programs by a large number of software development collaborators who prefer to share their applications with others.

The various free software programs are now able to compete on a level playing field with computer applications developed by IT giants such as Microsoft. This company, which continually abuses its market position, as the Commission itself has stated and against which it has opened infringement proceedings for non-compliance with a 2009 agreement, still provides almost all the basic software (operating systems, spreadsheets, text editors, etc.) used by the European institutions.

The proprietary software used by the institutions is perfectly replaceable with free software, which is capable of meeting the vast majority of user requirements in the EU institutions. Although some specific proprietary software is essential for the work of some services, the bulk of software licences acquired by the EU institutions are for basic and general purpose software that civil servants use to carry out their daily work.

The Commission has declared itself in favour of free software on a number of occasions, and it has launched various projects, including the OSOR and EUPL projects and many others. However, in reality, staff at the European institutions find themselves obliged to use the Microsoft operating system, and when it is updated new licences are purchased that must cost millions of euros. At a time when austerity has been imposed on a large proportion of people living in Europe, implementing free software as a way of saving millions of euros without reducing functionality should be imperative, even though this should not prevent the EU institutions from acquiring necessary software for which no free substitutes exist.

1.

Why do the Commission and the other EU institutions use software such as Microsoft, Windows, Microsoft Office, etc. when free applications, such as Linux, Open Office, etc., are available?

2.

Is the Commission taking any steps to replace basic software used in the EU institutions with free software?

Answer given by Mr Šefčovič on behalf of the Commission

(8 March 2013)

The Commission refers the Honourable Member to its answers to other written and oral questions (153) which raised similar issues. Those answers can be summarised as follows:

The Commission’s IT infrastructure is based on a large, well-diversified portfolio of software products, in which commercial and Open Source Software (OSS) coexist smoothly. The Commission is itself a world-leading organisation as regards the adoption of OSS (154).

The Commission follows a rigorous methodology to select the appropriate software configuration in terms of fitness-for-purpose and Total Cost of Ownership (TCO), while ensuring sound financial management and complying with the public procurement rules. Any choices made are reviewed regularly (155).

In that context, it is important to appreciate that OSS cannot be equated with cost-free software, and that any comparison of costs between OSS and other business models must be based on the TCO of each solution; this does not only include the cost of the licences but also setup, maintenance, support, training and other costs (156).

The Reference Configuration made available to Commission staff needs to be kept as homogeneous as possible in order to control the costs of supporting the corporate IT infrastructure and to maintain its security features (157).

The sanctions imposed to Microsoft as a result of its breaches of the EU competition rules do not prevent this company from participating in procurement procedures (158).

The Commission reassesses its office automation strategy periodically, and in close contact with the IT departments of the other EU institutions, including the European Parliament, since virtually all of them are currently using the same framework contracts in this area.

(Nederlandse versie)

Vraag met verzoek om schriftelijk antwoord E-000727/13

aan de Commissie

Ria Oomen-Ruijten (PPE) en Ivo Belet (PPE)

(24 januari 2013)

Betreft: Vervallen van het recht op opgebouwd Nederlands wettelijk pensioen

Nederland verhoogt haar wettelijke (AOW) pensioenleeftijd tot 67 jaar. De pensioenopbouw voor inwoners wordt berekend vanaf 17 t/m 67 jaar (max. 50 jaar 2 % per jaar) en niet meer van 15 t/m 65 jaar.

Er zijn Belgische grensarbeiders, die vanaf 15 t/m 17 jaar in Nederland hebben gewerkt en voor die jaren AOW-premie hebben betaald. De wettelijke pensioenleeftijd in België bedraagt 65 jaar. Als deze grensarbeiders op die leeftijd met pensioen gaan, ontvangen zij gedurende 2 jaar (nog) geen Nederlands AOW-pensioen. Als zij vervolgens op 67-jarige leeftijd wel Nederlands pensioen ontvangen, dan wordt de AOW opgebouwd tijdens het 15e en 16e levensjaar (2 x 2 %) waarvoor zij premies hebben betaald — niet uitbetaald. Inwoners van Nederland, die geen gebruik gemaakt hebben van „het vrij verkeer van werknemers” ontvangen als zij met 67 jaar met pensioen gaan altijd het volledige AOW-pensioen (50 x 2 %).

1.

Verzetten het EU-recht (art. 45 VWEU, beginsel van loyale samenwerking) en het arrest Leyman (C-3/08) zich tegen de nieuwe Nederlandse regeling, die er toe leidt dat een grensarbeider/migrerend werknemer

— gedurende 2 jaar een pensioenhiaat heeft én

— vervolgens ook nog eens vanaf het 67e jaar geen of een lager (-4 %) Nederlands AOW-pensioen ontvangt?

2.

Is de Nederlandse wetgeving niet in strijd met het EU-recht resp. het arrest Piatkowski (rechtsoverweging 36 van C‐493/04) die verbieden dat er premies voor sociale verzekeringen worden betaald zonder dat zij recht geven op een tegenprestatie?

2.

Is de Nederlandse wetgeving niet in strijd met het EU-recht resp. het arrest Piatkowski (rechtsoverweging 36 van C‐493/04) die verbieden dat er premies voor sociale verzekeringen worden betaald zonder dat zij recht geven op een tegenprestatie?

 (159)

3.

Is de nieuwe Nederlandse AOW-wetgeving voor wat betreft grensarbeiders/ migrerende werknemers niet in strijd met artikel 1 van het Eerste Protocol (EP) bij het EVRM?

3.

Is de nieuwe Nederlandse AOW-wetgeving voor wat betreft grensarbeiders/ migrerende werknemers niet in strijd met artikel 1 van het Eerste Protocol (EP) bij het EVRM?

 (160)

Antwoord van de heer Andor namens de Commissie

(20 maart 2013)

1.

De Commissie is van mening dat een uitgesteld recht op een AOW-pensioen, overeenkomstig de door het geachte Parlementslid vermelde rechtspraak, op zich niet onverenigbaar is met de artikelen 45 en 48 VWEU, op voorwaarde dat een werknemer daardoor niet wordt benadeeld ten opzichte van diegenen die hun winstgevende activiteiten alleen in die lidstaat uitoefenen en dat daardoor geen socialezekerheidsbijdragen worden betaald die geen recht geven op een uitkering. Voor inwoners van Nederland die met pensioen gaan op de leeftijd van 65 jaar en die hun winstgevende activiteiten alleen in die lidstaat uitoefenen, worden de tijdvakken van arbeid tussen hun 15e en hun 17e levensjaar niet meegerekend voor hun recht op een AOW-pensioen.

1.

De Commissie is van mening dat een uitgesteld recht op een AOW-pensioen, overeenkomstig de door het geachte Parlementslid vermelde rechtspraak, op zich niet onverenigbaar is met de artikelen 45 en 48 VWEU, op voorwaarde dat een werknemer daardoor niet wordt benadeeld ten opzichte van diegenen die hun winstgevende activiteiten alleen in die lidstaat uitoefenen en dat daardoor geen socialezekerheidsbijdragen worden betaald die geen recht geven op een uitkering. Voor inwoners van Nederland die met pensioen gaan op de leeftijd van 65 jaar en die hun winstgevende activiteiten alleen in die lidstaat uitoefenen, worden de tijdvakken van arbeid tussen hun 15e en hun 17e levensjaar niet meegerekend voor hun recht op een AOW-pensioen.

2.

De Commissie is van mening dat er een verschil is tussen deze situatie en die in de zaak Piatkowski

1.

De Commissie is van mening dat een uitgesteld recht op een AOW-pensioen, overeenkomstig de door het geachte Parlementslid vermelde rechtspraak, op zich niet onverenigbaar is met de artikelen 45 en 48 VWEU, op voorwaarde dat een werknemer daardoor niet wordt benadeeld ten opzichte van diegenen die hun winstgevende activiteiten alleen in die lidstaat uitoefenen en dat daardoor geen socialezekerheidsbijdragen worden betaald die geen recht geven op een uitkering. Voor inwoners van Nederland die met pensioen gaan op de leeftijd van 65 jaar en die hun winstgevende activiteiten alleen in die lidstaat uitoefenen, worden de tijdvakken van arbeid tussen hun 15e en hun 17e levensjaar niet meegerekend voor hun recht op een AOW-pensioen.

2.

De Commissie is van mening dat er een verschil is tussen deze situatie en die in de zaak Piatkowski

 (161)

1.

De Commissie is van mening dat een uitgesteld recht op een AOW-pensioen, overeenkomstig de door het geachte Parlementslid vermelde rechtspraak, op zich niet onverenigbaar is met de artikelen 45 en 48 VWEU, op voorwaarde dat een werknemer daardoor niet wordt benadeeld ten opzichte van diegenen die hun winstgevende activiteiten alleen in die lidstaat uitoefenen en dat daardoor geen socialezekerheidsbijdragen worden betaald die geen recht geven op een uitkering. Voor inwoners van Nederland die met pensioen gaan op de leeftijd van 65 jaar en die hun winstgevende activiteiten alleen in die lidstaat uitoefenen, worden de tijdvakken van arbeid tussen hun 15e en hun 17e levensjaar niet meegerekend voor hun recht op een AOW-pensioen.

2.

De Commissie is van mening dat er een verschil is tussen deze situatie en die in de zaak Piatkowski

3.

Artikel 1 van het eerste Protocol bij het Europees Verdrag tot bescherming van de rechten van de mens en de fundamentele vrijheden waarborgt geen recht op een pensioen als zodanig. Het ouderdomspensioen op deze manier verminderen of niet toekennen impliceert geen regulering van het gebruik van eigendom noch een ontnemen van eigendom, indien er een juist evenwicht wordt gevonden tussen het algemeen belang van de gemeenschap en de verplichting om de grondrechten van het individu te respecteren

1.

De Commissie is van mening dat een uitgesteld recht op een AOW-pensioen, overeenkomstig de door het geachte Parlementslid vermelde rechtspraak, op zich niet onverenigbaar is met de artikelen 45 en 48 VWEU, op voorwaarde dat een werknemer daardoor niet wordt benadeeld ten opzichte van diegenen die hun winstgevende activiteiten alleen in die lidstaat uitoefenen en dat daardoor geen socialezekerheidsbijdragen worden betaald die geen recht geven op een uitkering. Voor inwoners van Nederland die met pensioen gaan op de leeftijd van 65 jaar en die hun winstgevende activiteiten alleen in die lidstaat uitoefenen, worden de tijdvakken van arbeid tussen hun 15e en hun 17e levensjaar niet meegerekend voor hun recht op een AOW-pensioen.

2.

De Commissie is van mening dat er een verschil is tussen deze situatie en die in de zaak Piatkowski

 (161)

3.

Artikel 1 van het eerste Protocol bij het Europees Verdrag tot bescherming van de rechten van de mens en de fundamentele vrijheden waarborgt geen recht op een pensioen als zodanig. Het ouderdomspensioen op deze manier verminderen of niet toekennen impliceert geen regulering van het gebruik van eigendom noch een ontnemen van eigendom, indien er een juist evenwicht wordt gevonden tussen het algemeen belang van de gemeenschap en de verplichting om de grondrechten van het individu te respecteren

 (162)

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000727/13

to the Commission

Ria Oomen-Ruijten (PPE) and Ivo Belet (PPE)

(24 January 2013)

Subject: Expiry of the right to an accrued Dutch State Pension

The Netherlands is increasing its statutory retirement (AOW — basic state pension) age to 67. The accrued pension benefits are calculated for residents from the age of 17 up and to 67 years (maximum 50 years 2% per year) and no longer from 15 to 65.

There are Belgian cross-border workers that have been working in the Netherlands between the ages of 15 and 17 and who have paid their AOW contributions during that time. The statutory retirement age in Belgium is 65. If these workers retire at 65, they will not receive a Dutch AOW pension for two years. When they do start receiving a Dutch pension at the age of 67, then their pension accruals for the 15th and 16th year of their lives (2 x 2%) and for which they have paid contributions, are not paid out to them. Dutch residents, who have not made use of the free movement of workers right, receive their full AOW pension at the retirement age of 67 (50 x 2%).

1.

Is EC law (Art. 45 TFEU, principle of loyal cooperation) and the Leyman ruling (C-3/08) contrary to this new Dutch legislation that results in a cross-border/migrant worker

— not receiving a pension for 2 years

— and then receiving from his 67th year, no pension or a lower (-4%) Dutch AOW pension?

2.

Is Dutch law not contrary to EC law in respect to the Piatkowski ruling (Article 36 of C‐493/04) that stated that social security contributions should not be made without a person being entitled to a contribution?

2.

Is Dutch law not contrary to EC law in respect to the Piatkowski ruling (Article 36 of C‐493/04) that stated that social security contributions should not be made without a person being entitled to a contribution?

 (163)

3.

Is the new Dutch AOW legislation with regard to cross-border workers and migrant workers not in breach of Article 1 of the First Protocol of the ECHR ?

3.

Is the new Dutch AOW legislation with regard to cross-border workers and migrant workers not in breach of Article 1 of the First Protocol of the ECHR ?

 (164)

Answer given by Mr Andor on behalf of the Commission

(20 March 2013)

1.

The Commission is of the opinion that the mere fact that the right to an AOW pension takes effect on a later date, in accordance with the case-law mentioned by the Honourable Member, is not incompatible with Articles 45 and 48 TFEU, provided that this does not put a worker at a disadvantage compared with those who carry out their gainful activities solely within that Member State and it does not result in the payment of social security contributions on which there is no return. The entitlement to an AOW pension of residents of the Netherlands who retire at the age of 65 and who carry out their gainful activities solely within that Member State does not take account of periods worked by them from their 15th to their 17th birthdays.

1.

The Commission is of the opinion that the mere fact that the right to an AOW pension takes effect on a later date, in accordance with the case-law mentioned by the Honourable Member, is not incompatible with Articles 45 and 48 TFEU, provided that this does not put a worker at a disadvantage compared with those who carry out their gainful activities solely within that Member State and it does not result in the payment of social security contributions on which there is no return. The entitlement to an AOW pension of residents of the Netherlands who retire at the age of 65 and who carry out their gainful activities solely within that Member State does not take account of periods worked by them from their 15th to their 17th birthdays.

2.

The Commission is of the opinion that this situation is different from that in the Piatkowski

1.

The Commission is of the opinion that the mere fact that the right to an AOW pension takes effect on a later date, in accordance with the case-law mentioned by the Honourable Member, is not incompatible with Articles 45 and 48 TFEU, provided that this does not put a worker at a disadvantage compared with those who carry out their gainful activities solely within that Member State and it does not result in the payment of social security contributions on which there is no return. The entitlement to an AOW pension of residents of the Netherlands who retire at the age of 65 and who carry out their gainful activities solely within that Member State does not take account of periods worked by them from their 15th to their 17th birthdays.

2.

The Commission is of the opinion that this situation is different from that in the Piatkowski

 (165)

1.

The Commission is of the opinion that the mere fact that the right to an AOW pension takes effect on a later date, in accordance with the case-law mentioned by the Honourable Member, is not incompatible with Articles 45 and 48 TFEU, provided that this does not put a worker at a disadvantage compared with those who carry out their gainful activities solely within that Member State and it does not result in the payment of social security contributions on which there is no return. The entitlement to an AOW pension of residents of the Netherlands who retire at the age of 65 and who carry out their gainful activities solely within that Member State does not take account of periods worked by them from their 15th to their 17th birthdays.

2.

The Commission is of the opinion that this situation is different from that in the Piatkowski

3.

Article 1 of the first Protocol to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms does not guarantee the right to a pension as such. A retirement pension reduced or forfeited in this manner involves neither the control of use of property nor the depriving of a possession if a fair balance is struck between the general interest of the community and the requirement to protect the individual's fundamental rights

1.

The Commission is of the opinion that the mere fact that the right to an AOW pension takes effect on a later date, in accordance with the case-law mentioned by the Honourable Member, is not incompatible with Articles 45 and 48 TFEU, provided that this does not put a worker at a disadvantage compared with those who carry out their gainful activities solely within that Member State and it does not result in the payment of social security contributions on which there is no return. The entitlement to an AOW pension of residents of the Netherlands who retire at the age of 65 and who carry out their gainful activities solely within that Member State does not take account of periods worked by them from their 15th to their 17th birthdays.

2.

The Commission is of the opinion that this situation is different from that in the Piatkowski

 (165)

3.

Article 1 of the first Protocol to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms does not guarantee the right to a pension as such. A retirement pension reduced or forfeited in this manner involves neither the control of use of property nor the depriving of a possession if a fair balance is struck between the general interest of the community and the requirement to protect the individual's fundamental rights

 (166)

(Versión española)

Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-000730/13

a la Comisión

Ramon Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE)

(24 de enero de 2013)

Asunto: Tripas artificiales de proteínas endurecidas

Sabiendo que el producto 3917 10 10 «tripas artificiales de proteínas endurecidas (derivadas de productos animales)» actúa únicamente como cobertura de embutidos con una actividad de agua muy inferior a los productos cárnicos, acidez inferior a PH3, humedades absolutas muy bajas, sin contaminaciones cruzadas, siendo proteínas fibrosas químicamente tratadas con ácidos y álcalis agresivos que confieren al producto una vida útil muy superior al resto de derivados cárnicos y siendo la tripa de colágeno prácticamente imperecedera, no necesitando conservación (manteniéndose perfectamente en condiciones de temperatura ambiente), no precisando cadena de frío, atmósferas controladas, envase al vacío, etc. para mantener intactas sus propiedades:

A la luz de lo anterior,

¿Cree la Comisión que se debería proceder a la posible consideración de exclusión del producto 3917 10 10 «tripas artificiales de proteínas endurecidas (derivadas de productos animales)» del anexo (a la Decisión 2012/31/UE) de productos que han de someterse a control veterinario fronterizo, especialmente si se trata de un producto fabricado en la Unión Europea y únicamente exportado a un país extracomunitario (Turquía) para su plisado y envasado?

Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-000732/13

a la Comisión

Ramon Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE)

(24 de enero de 2013)

Asunto: Tripas artificiales de proteínas endurecidas II

Como medida para ser competitivas, algunas empresas europeas mandan tripas artificiales de proteínas endurecidas (derivadas de productos animales) para su plisado y envasado y su posterior reenvío a Europa. A partir de la entrada en vigor de la Decisión 2012/31/UE, el mencionado producto está sujeto a control en los puestos de inspección fronterizos, necesitando de un certificado sanitario que de momento FME no puede emitir. A partir de este momento, dicha empresa no puede importar el material producido en sus instalaciones, por considerarse de origen turco al ser plisado y envasado en la Zona Franca Turca. Este hecho perjudica y puede perturbar seriamente la actividad comercial y económica de dichas empresas. Teniendo en cuenta que:

en los considerandos de la Decisión 2012/31/UE se toman como referencia las mismas Directivas (91/496/CEE; 97/78/CE y 97/496/CE), y que la propia Decisión, en su Considerando 5, indica que el objeto de la Decisión es una adaptación «de la terminología» y en la «nomenclatura»,

la descripción del producto «tripas artificiales de proteínas endurecidas (derivadas de productos animales)» se ha mantenido sin variación alguna entre la fecha de la Decisión modificada 2007/275/CE y la fecha de la Decisión 2012/31/UE, habiéndose producido únicamente un cambio en el código NC (que antes tenía 4 dígitos y ahora es el 3917 10 10),

¿podría explicar la Comisión qué nuevo hecho, debate, riesgo o decisión ha provocado el cambio de criterio entre el anexo (a la Decisión 2007/275/CE) y el anexo (a la Decisión 2012/31/UE) de los productos que han de someterse a control veterinario fronterizo para que el producto «tripas artificiales de proteínas endurecidas (derivadas de productos animales)», que antes no requería el control en los puestos de inspección fronterizos, ahora sí precise de dicho control?

Respuesta conjunta del Sr. Borg en nombre de la Comisión

(11 de marzo de 2013)

El modelo de certificado sanitario para las importaciones de colágeno destinado al consumo humano se establece en el anexo VI, sección III, parte A, del Reglamento (CE) n° 2074/2005 (167). De conformidad con este certificado, el código de mercancía 3504 (168), que se define en la legislación aduanera de la UE, debería utilizarse para el colágeno. Dicho código figura en el anexo I de la Decisión 2007/275/CE (169), por la que se establece la lista de productos de origen animal que tienen que someterse a controles veterinarios en los puestos de inspección fronterizos autorizados de la UE (lista positiva).

Tras la consulta de los representantes de los Estados miembros y las partes interesadas en relación con los intercambios comerciales de tripas de colágeno, la Comisión llegó a la conclusión de que el código de mercancía 3504 no puede utilizarse para estos productos. El código de mercancía correcto para las tripas de colágeno es el código NC 3917 10 10, que, en consecuencia, ha sido incluido en la lista positiva mediante la Decisión 2012/31/UE de la Comisión (170). Dicha inclusión garantiza que las tripas de colágeno exportadas de terceros países se presentan en los controles fronterizos veterinarios para comprobar que su producción, transformación y distribución son conformes con los requisitos de higiene de la UE.

Los requisitos de la UE para este producto no se han modificado y la Comisión no tiene la intención de excluir las tripas de colágeno de los controles veterinarios fronterizos. Tales controles son también aplicables a los productos de la UE que se exportan para su transformación y redistribución a terceros países con el fin de reintroducirlos de nuevo en la EU, ya que la aplicación de los requisitos de higiene de la UE establecidos en el Reglamento (CE) n° 852/2004 (171) se aplican a todas las fases de la producción, la transformación y la distribución de alimentos.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000730/13

to the Commission

Ramon Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE)

(24 January 2013)

Subject: Artificial guts made of hardened protein

Product 39171010 — artificial guts of hardened protein derived from animal products — is used solely as sausage casing and has a much lower water activity than meat products, acidity below Ph3, very low absolute humidity and no cross contamination, being made up of fibrous proteins chemically treated with aggressive alkali and acids which gives the product a far longer shelf life than other meat-derived products, as collagen casing is virtually non-perishable and requires neither conservation (it keeps perfectly at room temperature) nor refrigeration, a controlled environment or vacuum packing, etc., in order to maintain its properties.

In light of the above:

Does the Commission believe that it is time to consider the exclusion of product 39171010 — artificial guts of hardened protein derived from animal products — from the list of products subject to border veterinary checks contained in Annex I to Decision 2007/275/EC (amended by Commission implementing Decision 2012/31/EU), particularly in view of the fact that the product in question is manufactured in the EU and only exported to one non-EU country (Turkey) for folding and packaging?

Question for written answer E-000732/13

to the Commission

Ramon Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE)

(24 January 2013)

Subject: Artificial guts made from hardened protein II

In order to be competitive, some European firms send artificial guts made from hardened protein (derived from animal products) to Turkey for folding and packaging, after which they are returned to Europe. With the entry into force of Commission implementing Decision 2012/31/EU, this product became subject to checks at border inspection posts and requires a health certificate which FME is not at present able to issue. From this point on, the firm is unable to import the material produced at its facilities, as it is deemed to be of Turkish origin, having been folded and packaged in the Turkish free zone. This situation is prejudicial to and may seriously disrupt the commercial and economic activity of the firms involved.

Bearing in mind that:

the recitals of Commission implementing Decision 2012/31/EU refer back to the same directives (91/496/EEC, 97/78/EC and 97/496/EC) and the decision itself, in Recital 5 thereof, states that its aim is to adapt the ‘terminology’ and ‘references’;

the product description of ‘artificial guts made from hardened protein deriving from animal products’ has undergone no change between the date of the amended Decision 2007/275/EC and that of implementing Decision 2012/31/EU. The only change is in the NC code, which previously had four digits and is now 3917 10 10;

could the Commission explain what new circumstance, debate, risk or decision has caused the change in criteria between the original annex (to Decision 2007/275/EC) and the new one (to Decision 2012/31/EU) concerning products subject to veterinary border control which has led to the product classified as ‘artificial guts made from hardened protein deriving from animal products’ becoming subject to such control, when this was not previously the case?

Joint answer given by Mr Borg on behalf of the Commission

(11 March 2013)

The model health certificate for imports of collagen intended for human consumption is laid down in Part A of Appendix III to Annex VI to Regulation (EC) No 2074/2005 (172). In accordance with this certificate, Commodity code 3504 (173), which is defined in EU Customs legislation, should be used for collagen. That code is listed in Annex I to Decision 2007/275/EC (174) laying down the list of products of animal origin which have to be presented for veterinary controls to EU approved border inspection posts (positive list).

Following consultation of Member States' representatives and stakeholders in relation to the existing trade of collagen casings, the Commission concluded that Commodity code 3504 cannot be used for these products. The correct Commodity code for collagen casings is CN code 3917 10 10, which — as a consequence — has been included in the positive list by Commission Decision 2012/31/EU (175). That inclusion ensures that collagen casings exported from non-EU countries are presented for veterinary border controls to verify that their production, processing and distribution is in line with the EU hygiene requirements.

EU requirements for this commodity have not been changed and the Commission does not have the intention to exclude collagen casings from veterinary border controls. Such controls are also applicable if EU products are exported for further processing and re-distribution to non-EU countries with the aim to re-introduce them into the EU as the application of the EU hygiene requirements laid down in Regulation (EC) No 852/2004 (176) apply during all stages of production, processing and distribution of food.

(Wersja polska)

Pytanie wymagające odpowiedzi pisemnej E-000733/13

do Komisji

Zbigniew Ziobro (EFD), Jacek Włosowicz (EFD), Jacek Olgierd Kurski (EFD) oraz Tadeusz Cymański (EFD)

(24 stycznia 2013 r.)

Przedmiot: W przedmiocie tworzonego systemu fotoradarów w Polsce

W ostatnim czasie w polskich mediach trwa burzliwa dyskusja na temat zasadności tworzonego w Polsce systemu sieci fotoradarów. Do początku stycznia przy polskich drogach ustawionych zostało 300 takich urządzeń. Po drogach porusza się 29 nieoznakowanych samochodów Inspekcji Transportu Drogowego, również wyposażonych w urządzenie rejestrujące wykroczenie drogowe. Dodatkowo Inspekcja Transportu Drogowego planuje stworzyć system odcinkowego pomiaru prędkości na polskich drogach.

Trudno polemizować z twierdzeniami, że należy robić wszystko, żeby podejmować działania służące poprawie bezpieczeństwa na polskich drogach. I w tym zakresie wydawać by się mogło bezzasadnym jest kwestionowanie powyższych działań.

Jednak Ministerstwo Finansów zapisało w budżecie 1,5 mld zł przychodu w roku 2012 z tytułu wpływów z mandatów za wykroczenia drogowe. Staje się to zatem podstawą do postawienia pytania: czy nie jest to forma swego rodzaju ukrytego podatku, który płacić będą kierowcy.

Bowiem, biorąc pod uwagę, że po polskich drogach porusza się 10 mln samochodów, łatwo można wyliczyć, że średnio na każdy samochód przypadać będzie kwota 150 zł, jaką średnio w ciągu roku posiadający pojazd wpłacić będzie musiał na rzecz skarbu Państwa.

W związku z powyższym pragniemy zapytać:

Czy pozbawienie przez Inspekcję Transportu Drogowego możliwości wglądu do zdjęcia z fotoradaru w sytuacji, gdy właściciel pojazdu ma wątpliwości przy ustaleniu rzeczywistego sprawcy wykroczenia rejestrującego wykroczenie jest zgodne z dyrektywą 2011/82/EU?

Czy inicjatywa ta jest finansowana ze środków europejskich? Jeśli tak, to czy przy widocznym deficycie autostrad i dróg ekspresowych w Polsce, złym stanie dróg już istniejących, zasadnym jest przeznaczanie ogromnych środków finansowych na system fotoradarowy w Polsce, zamiast te, póki co, przeznaczać na budowę czy remonty dróg już istniejących?

Czy zdaniem Komisji Europejskiej powyżej przedstawione podejście polskich służb do problemu uwzględnia najlepsze praktyki w zakresie poprawiania bezpieczeństwa ruchu drogowego?

Odpowiedź udzielona przez komisarza Siima Kallasa w imieniu Komisji

(27 marca 2013 r.)

Dyrektywa 2011/82/UE wprowadza ułatwienia w zakresie transgranicznej wymiany informacji dotyczących przestępstw lub wykroczeń związanych z bezpieczeństwem ruchu drogowego (177). Państwo członkowskie popełnienia przestępstwa lub wykroczenia może poinformować domniemanego sprawcę przestępstwa lub wykroczenia związanego z bezpieczeństwem ruchu drogowego za pomocą pisma informacyjnego, którego wzór jest określony w dyrektywie. Nie przesądza ona jednak, czy sprawca powinien mieć dostęp do zdjęcia. Co więcej, dyrektywa nie przewiduje harmonizacji przepisów dotyczących charakteru przestępstw lub wykroczeń lub systemu kar za sprawstwo. Decyzja dotycząca ustanowienia takich przepisów należy zasadniczo do kompetencji poszczególnych państw członkowskich. Dlatego też Komisja nie może skomentować informacji na temat nowego systemu egzekwowania prędkości wprowadzonego w Polsce zgodnie z opisem przedstawionym przez Szanownych Panów Posłów.

Komisja potwierdza, że w ramach środków bezpieczeństwa ruchu drogowego pewne projekty współfinansowane przez UE obejmują zakup kamer na potrzeby egzekwowania przepisów ruchu drogowego (w ramach osi priorytetowej VIII „Bezpieczeństwo transportu i krajowe sieci transportowe” programu operacyjnego „Infrastruktura i Środowisko”).

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000733/13

to the Commission

Zbigniew Ziobro (EFD), Jacek Włosowicz (EFD), Jacek Olgierd Kurski (EFD) and Tadeusz Cymański (EFD)

(24 January 2013)

Subject: Poland's traffic enforcement camera system

A heated debate has recently been playing out in the Polish media on whether the traffic enforcement camera system currently being set up in Poland is justifiable. By the start of January 2013, 300 traffic enforcement cameras had been placed alongside roads in Poland. Some 29 unmarked road transport inspectorate vehicles equipped with devices to record traffic offences are also circulating on Polish roads. Additionally, the road transport inspectorate plans to put a system in place to measure average speeds along stretches of road.

It is hard to disagree with the statement that we must do all we can to improve safety on Poland’s roads. In this context, it may appear unjustifiable to question the measures described above.

However, Polish Ministry of Finance figures show that fines imposed for traffic offences brought in revenues of PLN 1.5 billion for the national budget. This begs the question: is this not a form of hidden taxation imposed on drivers?

There are 10 million vehicles on Poland’s roads, and it is reasonable to estimate that every car owner will end up paying the treasury PLN 150 in fines in an average year.

In this connection:

The Polish road transport inspectorate does not allow people to see photographs taken by traffic enforcement cameras in cases where the vehicle owner disputes the identity of the offender captured on the photograph. Is this in accordance with Directive 2011/82/EU?

Does this initiative receive EU funding? If so, in view of the glaring lack of motorways and high-speed roads in Poland and the poor state of repair of existing roads, does it make sense to invest such large amounts of money in a traffic enforcement camera system instead of in constructing new or repairing existing roads?

In the Commission’s opinion, does the Polish authorities’ approach to the issue as described above take account of best practices as regards improving road safety?

Answer given by Mr Kallas on behalf of the Commission

(27 March 2013)

Directive 2011/82/EU facilitates the cross-border exchange of information on road safety related traffic offences (178). The Member State of the offence may inform the presumed offender of the road safety related traffic offence by information letter whose template is set out in the directive, but it does not prescribe whether the offender should have access to the photograph or not. The directive moreover does not harmonise rules concerning the nature of the offences or the penalty scheme for the offences. The decision to set such rules lies in principle within the competence of the Member States concerned. Therefore, the Commission cannot comment on the details of the new speed enforcement scheme reportedly introduced in Poland as described by the Honourable Members.

The Commission confirms that in the framework of road safety measures, some projects co-financed by the EU include the purchase of traffic enforcement cameras (within the Priority Axis VIII ‘Transport safety and national transport network’ of the Operational Programme Infrastructure and Environment).

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000734/13

to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)

Charles Tannock (ECR)

(24 January 2013)

Subject: VP/HR — The case of the Egyptian Coptic woman Nadia Mohamed Ali and her children

Is the Vice-President/High Representative aware of the disturbing case of Mrs Nadia Mohamed Ali, an Egyptian woman who, along with her 7 children, has been sentenced to 15 years of imprisonment for converting back to Christianity?

Mrs Nadia Mohamed Ali was a Coptic Christian before marriage, converted to Islam when she married her husband, and then chose to return to Christianity after her husband’s death in 2004.

The Egyptian Government, which actively encourages the conversion of Christians to Islam, not only denies the same right to Muslims who want to become Christians but punishes them with criminal sanctions in order to force them to comply with Islamic Sharia law. This is increasingly becoming a threat to the Coptic Christian minority and to converts to Christianity.

Can the Vice-President/High Representative make an appeal through the EU delegation in Cairo for clemency to be exercised and for Mrs Ali and her children to be released from prison?

Answer given by High Representative/Vice-President Ashton on behalf of the Commission

(18 June 2013)

The EU is aware and concerned about the constraints that different religious minorities face in Egypt and condemns all forms of intolerance, discrimination and violence against persons because of their religion or belief, wherever it takes place and regardless of the religion. The HR/VP repeatedly called on the Egyptian authorities to ensure freedom of religion or belief in the country.

Regarding the specific case of Nadia Mohamed Ali, the EU Delegation in Cairo confirms that the Egyptian Coptic woman has been sentenced to fifteen years imprisonment for changing her religion status on her identity document. Despite EEAS' inquiry in the country, at the moment we cannot confirm whether she is in prison or not. The EU will continue to follow closely the case and monitor the situation on the ground in order to provide additional information.

(Versión española)

Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-000735/13

a la Comisión

Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE)

(24 de enero de 2013)

Asunto: Repercusiones en espacios incluidos en la Red Natura 2000 de un proyecto relativo a una línea de muy alta tensión

La red Eléctrica de España (REE) proyecta instalar una línea eléctrica de doble circuito de 400 kv. en la provincia de Castellón (España). La línea de «muy alta tensión» (MAT) irá desde el municipio de Almassora hasta el de Morella, cruzando 17 términos municipales, contará con torres de más de 70 metros de altura, tendrá una envergadura de casi 30 m (con cortafuegos de 50 m) y la distancia media entre las torres será de 450 metros.

El trazado afecta a lugares emblemáticos de Castellón y a zonas de gran interés medioambiental. Atraviesa zonas pobladas sin respetar la distancia mínima de seguridad actualmente recomendada (1 metro por kilovoltio). Esta línea transcurre, parcialmente, por el lugar de importancia comunitaria (LIC) «Alt Maestrat de Castelló» y podría afectar al LIC del «Riu Bergantes» y a la Zona de Especial Protección para las Aves (ZEPA) de «L'Alt Maestrat, Tinença de Benifassà, Turmell i Vallivana», zonas incluidas en la Red Natura 2000, así como a importantes zonas de paso de aves migratorias. Además, afectará a importantes zonas donde vive el águila azor perdiguera (Hieraaetus fasciatus), especie en peligro según el Catálogo Español de Especies Amenazadas, el Catálogo Valenciano de Especies de Fauna Amenazadas, y que está recogida en los anexos II de los Convenios de Berna y Bonn, así como en el anexo I de la Directiva de Aves.

El anteproyecto y la evaluación de impacto medioambiental se encuentran en la actualidad en el Ministerio de Agricultura, Alimentación y Medio Ambiente para su examen y para que éste emita la declaración de impacto medioambiental. A continuación, esta documentación se remitirá al Ministerio de Industria para que conceda una autorización administrativa. Hasta que no se disponga de la declaración de impacto medioambiental y de la autorización administrativa, no se hará pública para la presentación de alegaciones tanto por parte de organismos como de particulares.

1.

¿Está la Comisión informada sobre la construcción de esta línea de muy alta tensión?

2.

¿Conoce la Comisión el procedimiento por el que se está llevando a cabo la declaración de impacto ambiental?

3.

¿Qué medidas tiene intención de adoptar la Comisión para garantizar que este proyecto no tenga repercusiones en zonas definidas como Lugares de Importancia Comunitaria (LIC) y Zonas de Especial Protección de las Aves (ZEPA) incluidas en la Red Natura 2000?

4.

¿Podría la Comisión intervenir con carácter preventivo a fin de evitar que la autorización administrativa sea favorable teniendo en cuenta las repercusiones en los LIC y la ZEPA a los que se ha hecho referencia anteriormente?

Respuesta del Sr. Potočnik en nombre de la Comisión

(7 de marzo de 2013)

La Comisión remite a Su Señoría a la respuesta dada a la pregunta escrita E‐011356/2012, realizada por D. Willy Meyer.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000735/13

to the Commission

Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE)

(24 January 2013)

Subject: Repercussions on spaces included within the Natura 2000 network of a project involving a very high voltage power line

Red Eléctrica Española (the Spanish Power Grid) plans to install a 400 kV double-circuit power line in the province of Castellón (Spain). The Very High Voltage (VHV) line will stretch from the municipality of Almassora to that of Morella, crossing 17 municipal districts; with towers over 70 m tall and almost 30 m across — with 50 m firewalls — separated by an average distance of 450 m.

The route affects symbolic sites in Castellón and areas of major environmental interest. It cuts through populated areas and fails to respect the current recommended minimum safety distance of 1 m/kV. The line partially crosses the ‘Alt Maestrat de Castelló’ site of Community importance (SCI) and may affect the ‘Riu Bergantes’ SCI and the ‘L’Alt Maestrat, Tinença de Benifassà, Turmell i Vallivana’ Special Birds Protection Area (SPA), which are areas included within the Natura 2000 network, as well as important transit areas for migratory birds. Furthermore, it will affect important areas that are habitats for the Bonelli’s eagle (Hieraaetus fasciatus), an endangered species according to the Spanish Catalogue of Endangered Species and the Valencian Catalogue of Endangered Species of Fauna, and listed in Annex II of both the Berne and Bonn Conventions and in Annex I of the Birds Directive.

The preliminary design and environmental impact assessment are currently under consideration at the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Environment so that it may issue the environmental impact statement. Next, the documentation will be forwarded to the Ministry of Industry so that it may grant administrative authorisation. Until the environmental impact statement and administrative approval are available, the documentation will not be made public for complaints to be submitted by organisations and individuals.

1.

Has the Commission been informed about the construction of this VHV line?

2.

Is the Commission aware of the procedure by which the

environmental impact statement is being carried out?

3.

What measures does the Commission intend to adopt to ensure that this project does not have repercussions in areas designated as Sites of Community Importance (SCI) and Special Birds Protection Areas (SPA) included in the Natura 2000 network?

4.

Could the Commission intervene to prevent the administrative authorisation from being issued, bearing in mind the repercussions on the aforementioned SCIs and SPA?

Answer given by Mr Potočnik on behalf of the Commission

(7 March 2013)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to written question E-011356/2012 (179) by Mr Willy Meyer.

(Versão portuguesa)

Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-000737/13

à Comissão

João Ferreira (GUE/NGL) e Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL)

(24 de janeiro de 2013)

Assunto: Dados estatísticos de base para negociação e repartição dos fundos estruturais

Tendo em conta a definição do próximo Quadro Financeiro Plurianual 2014-2020, e a negociação e repartição dos fundos estruturais que lhe está associada, a existência de dados estatísticos fiáveis e atualizados reveste-se da maior importância. É importante, desde logo, que esses dados traduzam fielmente a evolução profundamente negativa ocorrida nalguns países, como Portugal, onde se registam quebras consecutivas do PIB, e em especial nalgumas regiões menos desenvolvidas.

Assim, solicitamos à Comissão que nos informe sobre que dados estatísticos — referentes a que anos — servirão de base à negociação e repartição supracitadas, para os diferentes países e regiões (incluindo as Regiões Ultraperiféricas).

Resposta dada por Johannes Hahn em nome da Comissão

(12 de março de 2013)

A repartição das dotações baseia-se nos dados harmonizados mais recentes, disponibilizados quando a proposta da Comissão do Quadro Financeiro Plurianual foi elaborada. Esta informação inclui os dados referentes ao PIB por regiões e à população no período compreendido entre 2007‐2009.

Para os restantes indicadores, os anos de referência são 2008-2010. Tal é o caso relativamente aos dados do RNB a nível nacional e aos dados regionais sobre desemprego, taxa de emprego, taxa de abandono precoce do ensino e da formação e o grau de instrução da população com idades entre os 30 e os 34 anos (indicadores da estratégia «Europa 2020»).

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000737/13

to the Commission

João Ferreira (GUE/NGL) and Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL)

(24 January 2013)

Subject: Using statistical data to negotiate and allocate the Structural Funds

Updated and reliable statistics are of the utmost importance in defining the next Multiannual Financial Framework 2014‐2020 and in negotiating and allocating the corresponding Structural Funds. First and foremost, it is important that these data accurately reflect the significant downturn experienced by some countries, such as Portugal, which has seen a successive decline in GDP, particularly in some less developed regions.

Can the Commission therefore state which statistics — on which years — will be used to negotiate and allocate the Structural Funds to the various countries and regions (including the outermost regions)?

Answer given by Mr Hahn on behalf of the Commission

(12 March 2013)

The allocation distribution is based on the most recent available harmonised data, available when the Commission proposal for the multi-annual financial framework was drafted. This data includes regional GDP and population figures for 2007-2009.

For the other indicators, the reference years are 2008-2010. This is the case for GNI data at national level, and for regional data on unemployment, employment rate, early leavers from education and training, and the educational level of the population aged 30-34 (Europe 2020 indicators).

(Versão portuguesa)

Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-000738/13

à Comissão

João Ferreira (GUE/NGL) e Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL)

(24 de janeiro de 2013)

Assunto: 2014 — Ano Internacional da Agricultura Familiar

Por decisão da Assembleia-Geral das Nações Unidas, 2014 será o Ano Internacional da Agricultura Familiar. Esta decisão visa reconhecer a contribuição da agricultura familiar para a segurança alimentar e para a erradicação da pobreza no mundo. O objetivo é promover, em todos os países, políticas públicas que favoreçam o desenvolvimento sustentável de sistemas de produção agrícola baseados em unidades familiares, fornecer orientações para pôr em prática essas políticas, incentivar a participação de organizações de agricultores e, em geral, assinalar a importância de apoiar a agricultura familiar.

Tendo em conta a necessária antecedência com que o Ano Internacional da Agricultura Familiar deve ser preparado, solicitamos à Comissão Europeia que nos informe sobre o seguinte:

Que iniciativas estão já previstas no âmbito do Ano Internacional da Agricultura Familiar?

Que estudos vai desenvolver tendo em vista uma melhor caracterização da agricultura familiar na UE?

Quando pensa ter um calendário de preparação desta iniciativa e quais os momentos mais importantes do mesmo?

Tem alguma previsão para o lançamento de processos de candidatura a iniciativas, projetos, estudos, etc., associados ao Ano Internacional da Agricultura Familiar?

Resposta dada por Damian Cioloş em nome da Comissão

(13 de março de 2013)

A Comissão está ativamente implicada na preparação do Ano Internacional da Agricultura Familiar 2014, nomeadamente nas deliberações do Comité Diretor Internacional Informal (CIT), instituído pela Organização das Nações Unidas para a Alimentação e Agricultura (FAO) e que se reuniu pela primeira vez em novembro de 2012, estando implicada também nas atividades de sensibilização com as partes interessadas europeias e externas. Na primeira reunião do ISC os participantes foram convidados a, com base nas informações existentes, colaborar com as instituições regionais e nacionais para a elaboração de produtos regionais/nacionais orientados para as grandes diferenças ecológicas, sociais e políticas. A segunda reunião deve ser organizada no final de fevereiro/março.

A FAO, como promotora do processo, tem as suas atividades (que incluem diversos projetos e estudos) planeadas principalmente para 2014. A Comissão decidiu, no entanto, assumir um papel ativo no processo e organizará uma conferência em outubro/novembro de 2013, em Bruxelas, com a participação de instituições e Estados‐Membros da UE, assim como de outros países e organizações. Os resultados da conferência serão integrados na conferência regional da FAO, a realizar em abril de 2014, em Bucareste, na Roménia. Está planeado que os serviços da Comissão, em estreita colaboração com outras instituições da UE, compilarão a totalidade das informações e dados necessários. Não se iniciará qualquer estudo específico, mas parte da conferência facultará uma análise tipológica das explorações agrícolas da UE na UE-27/28.

Aproximadamente em abril de 2013 será disponibilizado um calendário de eventos pormenorizado, à escala da UE, no qual estará incluída a Conferência da Comissão.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000738/13

to the Commission

João Ferreira (GUE/NGL) and Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL)

(24 January 2013)

Subject: 2014 — International Year of Family Farming

The United Nations General Assembly has declared 2014 as the International Year of Family Farming. This decision aims to recognise family farming’s contribution to food security and poverty eradication throughout the world. It also aims to promote public policies in all countries that foster the sustainable development of agricultural production systems based on family farms, to provide guidance on implementing these policies, to encourage the participation of farmers’ organisations and to generally highlight the importance of supporting family farming.

Given that preparations for the International Year of Family Farming must begin well in advance, can the Commission state:

what initiatives are already planned as part of the International Year of Family Farming?

what studies will it undertake to better characterise family farming in the EU?

when will it draw up a timetable to prepare for this initiative and what will be the most important dates on it?

does it plan to launch application procedures for, inter alia, initiatives, projects and studies related to the International Year of Family Farming?

Answer given by Mr Cioloş on behalf of the Commission

(13 March 2013)

The Commission is actively involved in the run-up to the International Year of Family Farming 2014, especially in the deliberations of the Informal International Steering Committee (ISC) launched by the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), which met for the first time in November 2012, and the outreach activities with the European and external stakeholders. The first meeting of the ISC invited participants to build on existing information, and to collaborate with regional and national institutions to develop regional/national products targeted to the large ecological, social, political differences. The second meeting is to be organised in late February/March.

FAO, as a facilitator of the process, plans its activities (including various projects and studies) mainly in 2014. However, the Commission decided to take a pro-active role in the process and will organise a conference in October/November 2013 in Brussels with the participation of EU institutions and Member States and as well as other countries and organisations. The outcome of the conference will feed into the Regional FAO conference scheduled in April 2014 in Bucharest (Romania). It is planned that all the necessary data and information will be collated by Commission's services in close collaboration with other EU institutions. No specific study will be launched, although part of the conference will provide an analysis of the typology of EU farms in the EU-27/28.

A detailed timeframe of events at EU level, including the Commission's conference, will be available around April 2013.

(Versão portuguesa)

Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-000739/13

ao Conselho

João Ferreira (GUE/NGL) e Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL)

(24 de janeiro de 2013)

Assunto: Bandeira de Portugal na reunião do Eurogrupo

As cores da bandeira nacional portuguesa são o vermelho, o verde, o amarelo, o branco, o azul e o preto. A bandeira tem no seu centro, sobre um fundo verde e vermelho, uma esfera armilar onde assenta o símbolo do escudo português, ladeado por sete castelos, que representam outras tantas batalhas da História de Portugal.

Constatámos, com estupefação, que a bandeira nacional da República Portuguesa exposta na última reunião do Eurogrupo foi adulterada, já que em vez dos sete castelos encontramos o que parecem ser sete pagodes. Uma adulteração que não deixa de ser irónica à luz da recente alienação ao capital estrangeiro de importantes (estratégicas e lucrativas) empresas públicas portuguesas do setor energético, na sequência dos processos de privatização promovidos e apoiados pela UE e pelo FMI. Mas que nem por isso é menos inadmissível.

Assim, perguntamos ao Conselho:

A que se deve esta adulteração da Bandeira de Portugal presente na reunião do Eurogrupo?

Que medidas serão tomadas para corrigir prontamente esta situação?

Resposta

(25 de março de 2013)

1.

As bandeiras expostas na entrada VIP do Conselho foram oferecidas por uma Presidência anterior há quase uma década. O erro lamentável na bandeira portuguesa exposta não foi detetado nessa ocasião.

2.

Todas as bandeiras foram entretanto retiradas e substituídas por um novo conjunto que foi devidamente verificado. O Secretariado-Geral do Conselho lamenta o sucedido.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000739/13

to the Council

João Ferreira (GUE/NGL) and Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL)

(24 January 2013)

Subject: Portuguese flag at the Eurogroup meeting

The colours of the flag of Portugal are red, green, yellow, white, blue and black. At the centre of the flag, against a green and red background, is an armillary sphere over which lies the Portuguese shield, surrounded by seven castles, representing battles in the history of Portugal.

We were astonished to note that at the last Eurogroup meeting, the national flag of the Portuguese Republic had been altered, so that in the place of the seven castles were what appeared to be seven pagodas. This is nothing if not ironic in the light of the recent sale of major (strategic and profitable) Portuguese public energy corporations to foreign investors, following privatisation processes promoted and backed by the EU and IMF. This does not, however, make it any more acceptable.

We ask the Council:

What was the reason for this adulteration of the Portuguese flag at the Eurogroup meeting?

What measures will be taken to rectify the situation forthwith?

Reply

(25 March 2013)

1.

The flags displayed at the Council's VIP entrance were a gift from a previous Presidency, nearly a decade ago. The regrettable error in the Portuguese flag displayed was not spotted at the time.

2.

The whole set of flags has meanwhile been removed and replaced by a new, verified set. The General Secretariat of the Council expresses its regret for this error.

(Versão portuguesa)

Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-000740/13

à Comissão

João Ferreira (GUE/NGL) e Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL)

(24 de janeiro de 2013)

Assunto: Defesa e valorização da Arte Xávega

A Arte Xávega é uma arte de pesca com séculos de tradição em Portugal. Praticada ao longo da costa atlântica portuguesa é característica de várias comunidades costeiras, sendo parte importante do património histórico-cultural dessas comunidades, que importa preservar e valorizar.

Nesta arte, as redes são puxadas a partir de terra. Antigamente, tal era feito com recurso a animais ou à força braçal, sendo esta prática hoje apoiada por meios mecânicos. Tipicamente, a época de pesca é curta. Sendo uma arte «cega», já que no primeiro lance nunca se sabe o que virá à rede, os pescadores têm vindo a defender a possibilidade de todo esse lance ser vendável, incluindo o pescado que possa não cumprir os tamanhos mínimos, não desperdiçando assim nenhum peixe. As quantidades capturadas, em todo o caso, nunca são substanciais.

A profunda crise económica e social que afeta o setor da pesca em Portugal tem afetado de modo muito particular a Arte Xávega. Entre os principais problemas que os pescadores enfrentam estão o custo dos fatores de produção, em especial os combustíveis (a gasolina — que muitas embarcações têm de utilizar por razões de segurança que se prendem com a necessária capacidade de resposta dos motores em zonas perigosas — ao contrário do gasóleo, não é apoiada), e a insuficiente valorização do preço de primeira venda do pescado.

Perguntamos à Comissão:

De que forma podem as especificidades desta arte de pesca secular ser reconhecidas, defendidas e valorizadas ao nível da UE?

Resposta dada por Maria Damanakiem em nome da Comissão

(13 de março de 2013)

A Comissão reconhece plenamente a importância da pequena pesca, de que a Arte Xávega é um exemplo, bem como o papel vital que desempenha no tecido social e na identidade cultural de muitas regiões costeiras da Europa.

As artes e as práticas de pesca individuais não são protegidas enquanto tal pela UE. Por conseguinte, conquanto a Arte Xávega seja, reconhecidamente, um método de pesca pouco prejudicial para o ambiente, à semelhança de outros tipos de artes de cercar, como as redes de cerco dinamarquesas ou as redes envolventes-arrastantes de alar para a praia, a arte utilizada seria classificada como uma arte ativa, sujeita a todas as medidas técnicas de conservação pertinentes, entre as quais as relativas à malhagem, à construção de artes de pesca, à composição das capturas e aos tamanhos mínimos de desembarque.

Os pescadores são livres de diferenciar os seus produtos, recorrendo a regimes de certificação, valorizando-os e promovendo-os enquanto pescado capturado de forma responsável. Nesta matéria, o Fundo Europeu das Pescas (FEP) (180) prevê a possibilidade de os Estados-Membros concederem assistência financeira a um determinado número de medidas especificamente orientadas para a promoção de produtos capturados na pequena pesca. Está disponível financiamento para a promoção de produtos obtidos por métodos pouco prejudiciais para o ambiente, bem como para a certificação da qualidade, incluindo a criação de rótulos e a certificação de produtos capturados através de métodos de produção respeitadores do ambiente. A pesca com a Arte Xávega poderia ser elegível para esse tipo de auxílios.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000740/13

to the Commission

João Ferreira (GUE/NGL) and Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL)

(24 January 2013)

Subject: Protecting and valuing Arte Xávega

Arte Xávega is a fishing gear with centuries of tradition in Portugal. Practised along the Portuguese Atlantic coast, it is characteristic of several coastal communities and forms an important part of their historical and cultural heritage, which it is important to protect and value.

This gear involves hauling nets from the shore. In the past, this was done by animals or manually using brute force; nowadays it is done mechanically. The fishing season is typically short. Arte Xávega is a ‘blind’ gear, since the nets are cast without knowing what will be caught; as such, fishermen have been advocating the opportunity to sell the entire catch, including fish that do meet minimum size requirements, in order to eliminate waste. In any case, substantial quantities are never caught.

The deep economic and social crisis affecting the fisheries sector in Portugal has affected Arte Xávega in particular. Among the main problems facing fishermen are the cost of production factors, particularly fuel (petrol — which many vessels must use for safety reasons linked to the necessary response capacity of motors in hazardous areas — unlike diesel, is not supported), and low first sale fish prices.

How can the specific characteristics of this centuries-old fishing gear be recognised, protected and valued at EU level?

Answer given by Ms Damanaki on behalf of the Commission

(13 March 2013)

The Commission fully recognises the importance of small-scale fisheries such as Arte Xávega, which play a vital role in the social fabric and the cultural identity of many of Europe’s coastal regions.

At EU level individual fishing practices and gears are not protected as such. Therefore, while the Arte Xávega is recognised as a low impact fishing method similar to other types of encircling gears such as Danish seines or beach seines, the gears used would be classified as an active gear which would be subject to all relevant technical conservation measures. These would include mesh size, rules governing gear construction, catch composition and minimum landing sizes.

Fishermen are free to differentiate through certification schemes, add value and promote their products as responsibly caught. In this regard the European Fisheries Fund (EFF) (181) provides the possibility for Member States to grant financial assistance for a number of measures specifically targeted towards promoting products caught in small-scale fisheries. Funding is available for the promotion of products obtained using methods with low impact on the environment; as well as quality certification, including label creation and the certification of products caught using environmentally friendly production methods. Fisheries using the Arte Xávega could be eligible for such grant aid.

(Versão portuguesa)

Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-000741/13

à Comissão

João Ferreira (GUE/NGL) e Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL)

(24 de janeiro de 2013)

Assunto: Execução dos fundos estruturais por parte dos países alvo de intervenção UE-FMI

Em 2011, a Comissão Europeia propôs a aplicação de um complemento de dez pontos percentuais às taxas de cofinanciamento aplicáveis aos fundos estruturais da UE para os países alvo de intervenção UE-FMI.

Os chamados programas de assistência financeira, da responsabilidade da UE e do FMI, estão a conduzir os países alvo de intervenção para uma dramática e profunda recessão económica, com destruição de uma parte importante do tecido económico e social, afetando tanto a capacidade de investimento privado (em especial, das PME) como o investimento público — reduzido, nalguns casos, a níveis historicamente baixos.

Perguntamos à Comissão:

Que avanços se verificaram na execução de cada um dos fundos desde a aplicação do complemento de dez pontos percentuais às taxas de cofinanciamento?

Considera a Comissão que esta medida, efetivamente, proporcionou «aos Estados‐Membros em causa os fundos necessários para o apoio a projetos e a recuperação da economia», conforme era intenção expressa da sua proposta?

Considera a possibilidade de reduzir ainda mais as exigências de cofinanciamento nacional?

Resposta dada por Johannes Hahn em nome da Comissão

(18 de março de 2013)

A Comissão não concorda com a maneira como a pergunta caracteriza os programas de assistência financeira da UE. Os programas de assistência financeira prestam apoio aos países que deixaram de ter acesso aos mercados financeiros em condições aceitáveis e, assim, ajudam a facilitar o necessário processo de ajustamento económico. A Comissão considera que a recessão económica teria sido muito mais longa e grave se estes programas não existissem.

1.

Depois de aplicado o complemento às taxas de cofinanciamento para a Grécia, Portugal, a Roménia, a Hungria e a Irlanda, foram pagos a estes países 1,9 mil milhões de euros provenientes do Fundo Europeu de Desenvolvimento Regional, do Fundo Social Europeu, do Fundo Europeu Agrícola de Desenvolvimento Rural e do Fundo Europeu das Pescas, como indicado no anexo.

Estes montantes deram aos países a liquidez necessária para prosseguir a aplicação dos programas financiados pela UE num momento em que os recursos nacionais disponíveis diminuíam.

2.

A medida de aplicação do complemento tem sido muito eficaz para ajudar estes Estados‐Membros a enfrentar os efeitos da crise, uma vez que os montantes pagos depois de aplicado o complemento foram utilizados para a execução de projetos prioritários que contribuíram para a competitividade das regiões, para gerar crescimento e criar empregos.

3.

A Comissão não pretende reduzir ainda mais as exigências de cofinanciamento nacional.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000741/13

to the Commission

João Ferreira (GUE/NGL) and Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL)

(24 January 2013)

Subject: Implementation of the Structural Funds by countries receiving EU-IMF bailouts

In 2011, the Commission proposed increasing the co-financing rates applicable to the EU Structural Funds by 10 percentage points, for countries receiving EU‐IMF bailouts.

The so-called financial assistance programmes, managed by the EU and the IMF, are plunging the bailed-out countries into a deep and severe economic recession, destroying an important part of the social and economic fabric and affecting both private investment capacity (of SMEs in particular) and public investment capacity which, in some cases, has plummeted to historically low levels.

1.

What progress has been made regarding the implementation of each fund since increasing the co-financing rates by 10 percentage points?

2.

Does the Commission believe that this measure has effectively provided

‘the Member States concerned with the funds necessary to support projects and the recovery of the economy’, as expressly intended in its proposal?

3.

Will it consider further reducing the national co-financing requirements?

Answer given by Mr Hahn on behalf of the Commission

(18 March 2013)

The Commission does not agree with the characterisation of the EU financial assistance programmes set out in the question. The financial assistance programmes provide support to those countries which no longer have access to financial markets at acceptable terms and thus help to smooth the necessary adjustment process. The Commission considers that the economic downturn would have been much longer and more severe in the absence of the programmes.

1.

Following the application of the top-up of the co-financing rates for Greece, Portugal, Romania, Hungary and Ireland, EUR 1.9 billion has been paid out from the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development and the European Fisheries Fund to these countries as indicated in the annex.

These amounts have provided much needed liquidity and enabled the countries to continue implementing their EU funded programmes at a time when available national resources were decreasing.

2.

The top-up measure has been very effective in helping these Member States to deal with the effects of the crisis, since the amounts paid as a result of the top-up were used to implement priority projects that contribute to the competitiveness of regions and generate growth and create jobs.

3.

The Commission does not intend to further reduce the national co-financing requirements.

(Versão portuguesa)

Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-000742/13

à Comissão

João Ferreira (GUE/NGL) e Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL)

(24 de janeiro de 2013)

Assunto: Reprogramação do Fundo Europeu das Pescas — Portugal

Tendo em conta a reprogramação dos fundos estruturais para Portugal, relativamente ao Fundo Europeu das Pescas (FEP), perguntamos à Comissão:

Tem conhecimento de quais os montantes globais, por região, afetados diretamente à atividade da pesca e a outras atividades associadas ao meio marinho?

Que verbas do FEP estão ainda por utilizar por Portugal? Até quando terão essas verbas de ser utilizadas, sob pena de se perderem?

Resposta dada por Maria Damanakiem em nome da Comissão

(13 de março de 2013)

O montante atribuído a Portugal proveniente do Fundo Europeu das Pescas (FEP) para o período 2007-2013 ascende a 246,4 milhões de euros, repartidos do seguinte modo: 223,9 milhões de euros para as regiões do Objetivo da Convergência (Açores e Continente, à exceção de Lisboa) e 22,5 milhões de euros para as regiões do Objetivo não ligado à Convergência (Lisboa e Madeira). A repartição destas verbas dentro destes dois tipos de região é decidida de acordo com as prioridades dos Estados-Membros, no respeito das condições do FEP e da política comum das pescas.

O orçamento afetado ao FEP é executado com base num plano estratégico elaborado pelos Estados-Membros. Esse plano define as prioridades, os objetivos e as estimativas e prazos das despesas públicas de acordo com os objetivos do FEP, apresenta a perspetiva de longo prazo dos Estados-Membros relativamente à evolução das suas políticas da pesca e da aquicultura entre 2007 e 2013 e justifica o cumprimento dos objetivos da PCP através do plano. Este é executado através de um programa operacional que descreve mais pormenorizadamente o modo como as autoridades nacionais pretendem concretizar as oportunidades oferecidas pelo FEP. Tanto o plano como o programa operacional são preparados em estreita consulta com os parceiros sociais e económicos, aos níveis regional e local.

De acordo com a declaração de despesas de 31 de dezembro de 2012, 66 % das dotações totais para Portugal para o período 2007-2013 foram afetados a projetos aprovados pelas autoridades portuguesas. Apenas 38 % das dotações totais tinham sido executados e pagos aos beneficiários. O prazo para autorização e pagamento dos fundos do FEP aos beneficiários termina em 31 de dezembro de 2015.

Para mais informações sobre o Programa Operacional Português, remetem-se os Senhores Deputados para as autoridades portuguesas de gestão (182), responsáveis pela sua gestão e execução.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000742/13

to the Commission

João Ferreira (GUE/NGL) and Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL)

(24 January 2013)

Subject: Reprogramming of the European Fisheries Fund — Portugal

In view of the reprogramming of the Structural Funds allocated to Portugal, namely the European Fisheries Fund (EFF), we would ask the Commission:

is it aware of the overall amounts, by region, directly allocated to fishing activity and to other activities related to the marine environment?

which EFF funds remain unused by Portugal? When is the deadline for using these funds?

Answer given by Ms Damanaki on behalf of the Commission

(13 March 2013)

The amount allocated to Portugal from the European Fisheries Fund (EFF) during the period 2007-2013 is EUR 246,4 million divided into EUR 223,9 million for the Convergence objective regions (Azores and Mainland except Lisbon) and EUR 22,5 million for the Non-Convergence objective regions (Lisbon and Madeira). The allocation inside each of the two types of objective regions is decided according to Member State priorities in respect of the EFF conditions and the common fisheries policy.

The budget allocated to the EFF is implemented on the basis of a strategic plan drawn up by the Member State which defines priorities, objectives, public spending estimates and deadlines in line with EFF objectives and gives a long-term view of how they see the development of their fisheries and aquaculture policy between 2007 and 2013, and explaining how this meets the CFP’s objectives. This plan is implemented by way of an Operational Programme describing in more detail the way the national authorities intend to translate the opportunities offered by the EFF into practice. Both are prepared in close consultation with regional and local economic and social partners.

According to the statement of expenditure on 31 December 2012, 66% of the total appropriations for Portugal for the period 2007 to 2013 were committed to projects approved by the Portuguese authorities. Only 38% of the total allocations had been executed and paid to the beneficiaries. The deadline to commit and pay EFF funding to the beneficiaries is 31 December 2015.

For more information on the Portuguese Operational Programme, the Honourable Member is invited to refer to the Portuguese Managing Authorities (183), responsible for managing and implementing the Operational Programme.

(Versão portuguesa)

Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-000743/13

à Comissão

João Ferreira (GUE/NGL) e Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL)

(24 de janeiro de 2013)

Assunto: Restrições à importação e posse privada de espécies ameaçadas

Em abril de 2012, o Parlamento Europeu aprovou um relatório relativo à Estratégia da UE sobre a Biodiversidade até 2020. Neste relatório refere-se a «necessidade de assegurar que o comércio de espécies ameaçadas incluídas na Lista Vermelha elaborada pela União Internacional para a Conservação da Natureza fique sujeito a restrições crescentes e, designadamente, a uma regulamentação estrita». Ademais, alerta-se a Comissão Europeia para a necessidade de avaliar e apresentar propostas tendentes à proibição da captura de animais selvagens para venda como animais de estimação.

Perguntamos à Comissão:

Admite a necessidade de maiores restrições à importação e posse privada de espécies ameaçadas, como primatas, répteis e anfíbios?

Que avaliações e propostas elaborou no sentido de dar seguimento às recomendações supramencionadas?

Resposta dada por Janez Potočnik em nome da Comissão

(18 de março de 2013)

Na União Europeia, há já diversas disposições que condicionam a importação e a posse privada de espécies ameaçadas.

Em particular, os regulamentos relativos ao comércio da fauna e da flora selvagens — que aplicam na UE a Convenção sobre o Comércio Internacional das Espécies de Fauna e Flora Selvagens ameaçadas de Extinção (CITES) — preveem as condições de importação e detenção das espécies em causa, exigindo, nomeadamente, licenças de importação. Antes de os pedidos de importação serem aprovados, é necessário confirmar que a introdução na União Europeia não terá efeito nocivo no estado de conservação das espécies. Por outro lado, os regulamentos preveem a possibilidade de as importações serem suspensas se o comércio de uma determinada espécie não for considerado sustentável e incluem também regras para a posse e a circulação de espécimes vivos. Os regulamentos são analisados regularmente, tendo em conta novos dados científicos, como avaliações publicadas pela União Internacional para a Conservação da Natureza, a fim de incluir novas disposições decorrentes da CITES e com vista a uma melhor aplicação da legislação.

Neste contexto, a Comissão está a ponderar opções para a prevenção e a gestão da entrada na UE e da posse de espécies invasivas exóticas, no âmbito de uma proposta legislativa em preparação.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000743/13

to the Commission

João Ferreira (GUE/NGL) and Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL)

(24 January 2013)

Subject: Restrictions on the import and private ownership of endangered species

In April 2012, the European Parliament adopted a resolution on the EU biodiversity strategy to 2020. The resolution mentions the ‘need to ensure that trade in threatened species — included in the Red List drawn up by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature — is subject to increased restrictions and, in particular, strict regulation’. Furthermore, it alerts the Commission to the need to assess and make proposals for a ban on wild-caught animals for the pet trade.

We ask the Commission:

Does it accept the need for greater restrictions on the import and private ownership of endangered species, such as primates, reptiles and amphibians?

What assessments and proposals has it made further to the abovementioned recommendations?

Answer given by Mr Potočnik on behalf of the Commission

(18 March 2013)

Within the EU, there are already a number of requirements in place applying to the import and private ownership of endangered species.

In particular, the EU Wildlife Trade Regulations which implement the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) in the EU, provide for the conditions for import and holding of such species. The regulations require import permits. Before import applications are approved, it has to be established that the introduction into the Union would not have a harmful effect on the conservation status of the species. In addition, the regulations provide the possibility for import suspensions if the trade in a species is not considered sustainable. The regulations also include rules governing keeping and movement of live specimens. They are reviewed on a regular basis, taking into consideration new scientific information such as assessments published by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature, to include new provisions under CITES and with a view to better implement the legislation.

In this context, the Commission is evaluating options to prevent and manage the entry into the EU and ownership of exotic invasive species within its framework of a forthcoming legislative proposal.

(Versão portuguesa)

Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-000744/13

à Comissão

João Ferreira (GUE/NGL)

(24 de janeiro de 2013)

Assunto: Investimentos em infraestruturas de apoio à pesca de pequena escala (Setúbal, Portugal)

No concelho de Setúbal, diversas entidades ligadas à pesca têm vindo a chamar a atenção para a importância de alguns investimentos em infraestruturas de apoio à pesca, que poderiam apoiar o desenvolvimento quer da pesca de pequena escala local quer de um conjunto de atividades associadas. Entre outros investimentos, tem sido referida a importância da construção de estaleiros de reparação naval, que atualmente não existem, e da melhoria das condições da lota local, por exemplo ao nível da produção de gelo, de forma a valorizar o pescado e contribuindo para a sua boa conservação.

Em face do exposto, pergunto à Comissão:

Que fundos da UE podem apoiar a construção de estaleiros de reparação naval de apoio à pesca de pequena escala local e qual o cofinanciamento comunitário previsto?

Que fundos da UE podem apoiar a melhoria das condições da lota de Setúbal, nomeadamente investindo em capacidade de produção de gelo própria, e qual o cofinanciamento comunitário previsto?

Resposta dada por Maria Damanaki em nome da Comissão

(12 de abril de 2013)

A Comissão está ciente da importância das atividades relacionadas com a pesca para o desenvolvimento local das zonas de pesca. Neste sentido, o eixo 4 do Fundo Europeu das Pescas (FEP) visa apoiar a sua diversificação mediante a criação de postos de trabalho e domínios de atividade. Neste contexto, Portugal pode considerar a concessão de apoio à construção de um estaleiro de reparação naval uma atividade artesanal empreendida por pessoas que desejam diversificar o setor da pesca e inovar, se tal for compatível com a estratégia do grupo de ação local nas pescas (FLAG), abrangida pelo eixo 4 do FEP, para a região de Setúbal.

No respeitante às lotas, Portugal poderia ponderar a possibilidade de prestar apoio, nos termos do artigo 39.° do Regulamento FEP, à melhoria das condições nos portos de pesca para o abastecimento em combustível, gelo, alimentação de água e eletricidade.

Enquanto instrumento de gestão partilhada, o FEP é gerido de acordo com as prioridades e as medidas estabelecidas pelos Estados-Membros. Para mais informações, o Senhor Deputado é convidado, por conseguinte, a contactar a autoridade de gestão portuguesa.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000744/13

to the Commission

João Ferreira (GUE/NGL)

(24 January 2013)

Subject: Investment in infrastructure to support small-scale fishing (Setúbal, Portugal)

Several fishing organisations in the municipality of Setúbal have drawn attention to the importance of investing in fishing-support infrastructure, which could promote the development of both local small-scale fishing and a series of associated activities. Among other investments, they have highlighted the importance of building boat-repair yards — of which there are currently none — and improving conditions at the local fish market, for example in terms of ice production, with a view to increasing the value of the fish and contributing to its proper storage.

I ask the Commission:

What EU funds could support the construction of boat-repair yards in support of local small-scale fishing, and what Community co-financing provision is there?

What EU funds could support improvements to conditions at the Setúbal fish market, namely by investing in its capacity for ice production, and what Community co-financing provision is there?

Answer given by Ms Damanaki on behalf of the Commission

(12 April 2013)

The Commission is aware of the importance of activities related to fisheries in the local development of fisheries areas. In this sense the Axis 4 of the European Fisheries Fund (184) (EFF) aims to support their diversification by creating jobs and business areas. In this context, Portugal could consider granting aid for the establishment of a boat-repair yard as an artisanal activity initiated by people wishing to diversify the fishing sector and to innovate, if this would be compatible with the strategy of the Fisheries Local Action Group (FLAG) covered by Axis 4 of the EFF for Setubal region.

For the fish markets, Portugal could consider providing support under Article 39 the EFF Regulation for the improvement of conditions in fishing ports to provide fuel, ice, water and electricity.

As a shared management tool, the EFF is spent according to priorities and measures established by the Member States. For further information the Honourable Member is therefore invited to contact the Portuguese managing authority (185).

(Versão portuguesa)

Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-000745/13

à Comissão

João Ferreira (GUE/NGL)

(24 de janeiro de 2013)

Assunto: Pesca de raias em Portugal (II)

Na resposta à pergunta E-000207/2012, a Comissão Europeia afirma que «a principal quota portuguesa de raias (todos os rajiformes) ao abrigo dos TAC (totais admissíveis de capturas) fixados pelo Conselho diz respeito às subzonas CIEM VIII e IX. Para 2012, foi atribuída a Portugal uma quota de 1 298 toneladas, de um TAC de 4 222 toneladas. No entanto, esta quantidade só abrange capturas de espécies de raia que não: Raia-curva (Raja undulata); Raia‐oirega (Dipturus batis); Raia-taigora (Rostroraja alba).»

Solicito à Comissão que me informe sobre o seguinte:

Qual o ponto de situação para 2013 relativamente à quota portuguesa de raias?

Mantém-se a interdição da pesca das espécies supracitadas ou de algumas outras espécies de raias?

Qual a evolução dos respetivos stocks desde a interdição?

Resposta dada por Maria Damanaki em nome da Comissão

(12 de março de 2013)

As raias são capturadas conjuntamente em pescarias mistas e geridas no âmbito de um total admissível de capturas comum (TAC). Embora algumas espécies sejam relativamente abundantes e permitam um aumento das capturas, outras estão depauperadas e precisam de ser protegidas. Em 2012, o Conselho Internacional de Exploração do Mar (CIEM) elaborou, pela primeira vez, recomendações (186) sobre a alteração, em percentagem, das capturas de cada uma das principais espécies comerciais. Em relação à maior parte das espécies no golfo da Biscaia e nas águas atlânticas da Península Ibérica, o CIEM preconizou uma diminuição das capturas de 20 %.

Para 2013, do TAC (Total Admissível de Capturas) de 3 800 toneladas, foi atribuída a Portugal uma quota de raias (Rajiformes) nas zonas CIEM VIII, IX de 1 168 toneladas (187).

A proibição de pescar raia-curva (Raja undulata), raia-oirega (Dipturus batis) e raia-taigora (Raja alba) permanece em vigor, não tendo sido acrescentadas outras espécies nas referidas zonas CIEM. De acordo com o CIEM, as unidades populacionais das espécies que são objeto de uma proibição de pesca continuam depauperadas. O Comité Científico, Técnico e Económico das Pescas (CCTEP) concorda (188) com o parecer do CIEM.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000745/13

to the Commission

João Ferreira (GUE/NGL)

(24 January 2013)

Subject: Skate and ray fishing in Portugal (II)

In its reply to Written Question E-000207/2012, the Commission states that ‘Portugal holds its main quota for fishing rays (all rajiformes) under the TAC (Total Allowable Catches) set by the Council for ICES Areas VIII and IX. For 2012, Portugal has been allocated a quota of 1 298 tonnes, out of the TAC of 4 222 tonnes. However, this tonnage can only comprise catches of ray species other than the following: Undulate ray (Raja undulata); Common skate (Dipturus batis); White skate (Rostroraja alba).’

Could the Commission please provide the following information:

What is the current position for 2013 concerning the Portuguese quota for fishing skates and rays?

Does the ban on fishing the abovementioned species and some other species of skates and rays remain in force?

How have these species’ stocks evolved since the ban?

Answer given by Ms Damanaki on behalf of the Commission

(12 March 2013)

Skates and rays are caught together in mixed fisheries and managed under a common Total allowable catch (TAC). While some species are relatively abundant allowing increased catches, others are depleted and need to be protected. In 2012 for the first time the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) advised (189) on the percentage change in catch for each of the main commercial species. For most of these species in the Bay of Biscay and Atlantic Iberian waters ICES advised to decrease catches by 20%.

For 2013 Portugal has been allocated a quota for skates and rays (Rajiformes) in ICES areas VIII and IX of 1,168 tonnes, out of a TAC (Total Allowable Catches) of 3,800 tonnes (190).

The ban on fishing undulate ray (Raya undulata), common skate (Dipturus batis) and white skate (Raja alba) remains in force and no other species were added in the aforementioned ICES areas. According to ICES the stocks of banned species are still depleted. The Scientific Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF) agrees (191) with ICES advice.

(Versão portuguesa)

Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-000746/13

à Comissão

João Ferreira (GUE/NGL)

(24 de janeiro de 2013)

Assunto: Prejuízos para a pesca resultantes da proliferação de algas (Setúbal, Portugal)

Numa visita recente ao porto de pesca de Setúbal, fui alertado pelos pescadores locais para o problema da proliferação de algas castanhas na região (cujo nome comum entre os pescadores é «pele-de-batata»). As algas têm provocado sérios prejuízos nas artes de pesca e quebras acentuadas no rendimento da pesca de pequena escala, agravando uma situação já de si precária. Não se conhece, até à data, a origem deste fenómeno, mas a sua persistência, desde há vários meses, vem preocupando a comunidade pesqueira local.

Em face do exposto, pergunto à Comissão:

Que medidas podem ser tomadas, ao nível da UE, para apoiar os pescadores em situações como a descrita?

Qual o ponto de situação relativamente ao projeto-piloto para criação de um sistema de seguro público para acontecimentos imprevisíveis no setor das pescas?

Poderia, no futuro, este sistema apoiar os pescadores em situações como a descrita?

Resposta dada por Maria Damanaki em nome da Comissão

(2 de abril de 2013)

A Comissão está plenamente consciente do impacto que os acontecimentos imprevisíveis podem ter nas atividades piscatórias e nos rendimentos do setor das pescas. Poderia ser concedido apoio financeiro no quadro do programa operacional elaborado pelas autoridades portuguesas e adotado pela decisão da Comissão para a aplicação do Fundo Europeu das Pescas (FEP) (192) em Portugal.

O FEP pode contribuir para o financiamento de medidas de auxílio à cessação temporária das atividades de pesca afetadas por planos de ajustamento do esforço de pesca, ou, de acordo com o artigo 24.°, n.° 1, alínea vii), do Regulamento FEP, em caso de encerramentos de pescarias decididos pelos Estados-Membros por motivos de saúde pública ou de outros acontecimentos extraordinários não resultantes de medidas de conservação dos recursos. A Comissão não dispõe de nenhuma informação relativa ao projeto-piloto para a criação de um sistema de seguro público, mas convida o Senhor Deputado a contactar a autoridade portuguesa de gestão (193).

Para o período compreendido entre 2014 e 2020, a proposta da Comissão relativa ao Fundo Europeu dos Assuntos Marítimos e das Pescas (FEAMP) (194) está neste momento a ser discutida no Parlamento Europeu e no Conselho.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000746/13

to the Commission

João Ferreira (GUE/NGL)

(24 January 2013)

Subject: Damage to fishing caused by the spread of algae (Setúbal, Portugal)

On a recent visit to the fishing port of Setúbal, local fishermen alerted me to the problem of the spread of brown algae in the region (commonly known among the fishermen as pele-de-batata [potato skin]). The algae have caused serious damage to fishing activities and a sharp drop in income from small-scale fishing, thus worsening an already insecure situation. It is not known at present what is behind the phenomenon, but its persistence over recent months is causing concern within the local fishing community.

In view of the above, I ask the Commission:

What measures can be taken at EU level to support fishermen in the situation described?

What is the current state of the pilot project to create a public insurance policy for unforeseeable events in the fishing industry?

In future, might this system be able to support fishermen in the situation described?

Answer given by Ms Damanaki on behalf of the Commission

(2 April 2013)

The Commission is well aware of the impact that unpredictable situations can have on the fisheries activities and on the income of fisheries industry. In this sense, financial support could be granted in the framework of the national operational programme drawn up by Portugal and adopted by Commission decision for the implementation of the European Fisheries Fund (195) (EFF) in Portugal.

The EFF may contribute to the financing of aid measures for the temporary cessation of fishing activities affected by fishing effort adjustment plans, or according to Article 24(1) vii) of the EFF Regulation in case of closure of the fishery for reasons of public health or other exceptional occurrence which is not the result of resources conservation measures. The Commission does not have any information regarding the pilot project on public insurance but would invite the Honourable Member to contact the Portuguese managing authority (196).

For the period 2014 to 2020, the Commission proposal for the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) (197) is currently under discussion in the European Parliament and the Council.

(Versión española)

Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-000747/13

a la Comisión

Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL)

(24 de enero de 2013)

Asunto: Cierre de servicios de salud pública nocturna en Castilla-La Mancha

El Gobierno autonómico regional de Castilla-La Mancha en España ha comenzado el año continuando su política de austeridad que está llevando al desastre a su economía. Esta política, nefasta para el crecimiento, amenaza también gravemente a los servicios de salud pública, puesto que el Gobierno autonómico ha comenzado a disolver servicios en áreas poco pobladas de la región al calificarlos como poco eficientes.

El Gobierno autonómico ha decidido clausurar el servicio de 24 horas en 21 Puntos de Atención Continuada (PAC), afectando a decenas de municipios de Castilla-La Mancha. Esta medida supone exponer a alrededor de unas 100 000 personas de las comarcas menos pobladas a la anulación del servicio de urgencias y los obliga a desplazarse hasta durante 52 minutos en algunos casos para alcanzar un PAC.

En Castilla-La Mancha vivían en 2011, según los datos del Servicio de Estadística de Castilla-La Mancha, 122 080 ciudadanos de otros Estados miembros de la Unión Europea. Estos ciudadanos europeos residentes en dicha comunidad autónoma deben ser tratados por los servicios de salud pública regionales según lo dispuesto en la Directiva sobre asistencia sanitaria transfronteriza (Directiva 2011/24/UE del Parlamento Europeo y el Consejo). Esta Directiva dispone que los ciudadanos de otros Estados miembros deben recibir una asistencia sanitaria « segura y de alta calidad » por parte de los servicios nacionales. Si los ciudadanos de otros Estados miembros que viven en Castilla-La Mancha habitan las zonas donde se han clausurado los servicios nocturnos de los PAC, podría suponer que para recibir atención primaria deban viajar hasta 52 minutos. El tiempo que transcurre entre una urgencia y su atención primaria supone uno de los principales aspectos para garantizar la calidad de la asistencia sanitaria frente a una urgencia. Con la supresión de la atención nocturna en 21 PAC se expone a parte de la población a tiempos de espera hasta la atención de una urgencia, lo que puede implicar la reducción de la calidad de la asistencia sanitaria.

¿Dispone la Comisión de información sobre si existen residentes de otros Estados miembros en Castilla-La Mancha en las comarcas donde se han suprimido los servicios nocturnos de los PAC?

En caso afirmativo, ¿actuará la Comisión para garantizar el cumplimiento de la Directiva 2011/24/UE?

¿Considera posible una atención sanitaria de alta calidad con los tiempos de espera para las urgencias que supondrá la supresión del servicio nocturno de los 21 PAC?

Respuesta del Sr. Borg en nombre de la Comisión

(11 de marzo de 2013)

Las normas que rigen el acceso a la asistencia sanitaria en el Estado miembro en el que reside una persona no son las establecidas en la Directiva 2011/24/UE (198), sino las establecidas en los Reglamentos relativos a la coordinación de los sistemas de seguridad social [Reglamentos (CE) n° 883/2004 (199), (CE) n° 987/2009 (200) y (CE) n° 1231/2010 (201)]. Por lo tanto, no se plantea la cuestión del cumplimiento de dicha Directiva.

Cada Estado miembro puede determinar libremente los detalles de su propio régimen de seguridad social, pero en consonancia con el principio de no discriminación establecido en dichos Reglamentos (y en la Directiva 2011/24/UE en lo que respecta a la asistencia sanitaria recibida fuera del Estado miembro de residencia), las personas de un Estado miembro deben ser tratadas de la misma manera que los nacionales del Estado miembro en el que se recibe el tratamiento a condición de que respeten los requisitos de la legislación nacional. No hay ninguna disposición ni en la Directiva ni en los Reglamentos que obligue a los Estados miembros a prestar determinados servicios, o a configurar esos servicios de una determinada manera (con excepción de los servicios sometidos a la legislación de la Unión en materia de normas de seguridad en los ámbitos de los órganos y sustancias de origen humano, sangre y derivados de la sangre).

Asimismo conviene señalar que el artículo 168 del Tratado de Funcionamiento de la Unión Europea dispone que «la acción de la Unión en el ámbito de la salud pública respetará las responsabilidades de los Estados miembros por lo que respecta a la definición de su política de salud, así como a la organización y prestación de servicios sanitarios y atención médica». Estas responsabilidades incluyen la gestión de los servicios de salud y de atención médica, así como la asignación de los recursos que se destinan a dichos servicios.

Por consiguiente, según la legislación de la UE, corresponde claramente a los Estados miembros decidir qué servicios se prestan, y la forma en que estos servicios están configurados y se suministran.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000747/13

to the Commission

Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL)

(24 January 2013)

Subject: Closure of public health night services in Castilla-La Mancha

The Government of the autonomous region of Castilla-La Mancha, in Spain, has begun the year by continuing with its austerity policy, which is proving disastrous for the local economy. While this policy is detrimental to growth, it also seriously threatens public health services, as the autonomous government has begun to close services in sparsely populated areas of the region, alleging that the former are inefficient.

The autonomous government has decided to close the 24-hour service in 21 Continuous Care Points (PACs), affecting dozens of municipalities in Castilla-La Mancha. Around 100 000 people in the least populated districts are affected by the closure of these emergency services, and are obliged to travel for up to 52 minutes to reach a PAC.

According to data from Castilla-La Mancha’s Statistical Service, 122 080 citizens of other European Union Member States were living in Castilla-La Mancha in 2011. The European citizens living in this autonomous community should be treated by the regional public health services under the provisions of the Directive on cross-border healthcare (Directive 2011/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council). This Directive states that national services must provide ‘safe and high-quality’ healthcare to citizens of other Member States. Any citizens of other Member States living in areas of Castilla-La Mancha where PAC night services have been closed may need to travel up to 52 minutes to receive initial care. The time lapsed between an emergency arising and initial treatment is one of the main factors involved in ensuring good quality healthcare in response to an emergency. The closure of night care in 21 PACs increases the waiting times for emergency care for part of the population and this may involve lowering the quality of healthcare.

Does the Commission have information on whether citizens of other Member States are resident in districts of Castilla-La Mancha where PAC night services have been closed?

If this is the case, will the Commission act to guarantee compliance with Directive 2011/24/EU?

Does it consider high quality healthcare to be possible given the waiting times for emergency care that result from closure of night service in the 21 PACs?

Answer given by Mr Borg on behalf of the Commission

(11 March 2013)

The rules governing access to healthcare in the Member State in which a person resides are not those set out in Directive 2011/24/EU (202), but rather those set out in the regulations on the coordination of social security systems (Regulations (EC) No 883/2004 (203), 987/2009 (204), and 1231/2010 (205)). Therefore the question of compliance with that directive does not arise.

Each Member State remains free to determine the details of its own social security system, but in line with the principle of non-discrimination set out in those Regulations (and of Directive 2011/24/EU with regard to healthcare received outside the Member State of residence), persons from one Member State should be treated on the same basis as the nationals of the Member State in which the treatment is received as long as they meet the requirements of the national law. There is no provision in either the directive or the regulations which obliges Member States to provide certain services, or to configure those services in a given way (with the exception of services subject to Union legislation on safety standards in the areas of organs and substances of human origin, blood and blood derivatives).

It should also be noted that Article 168 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union states that ‘Union action shall respect the responsibilities of the Member States for the definition of their health policy and for the organisation and delivery of health services and medical care’. These responsibilities ‘shall include the management of health services and medical care and the allocation of the resources assigned to them’.

Within EC law, it is therefore clearly for Member States to decide which services they provide, and how those services are configured and delivered.

(Deutsche Fassung)

Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-000748/13

an die Kommission

Angelika Werthmann (ALDE)

(24. Januar 2013)

Betrifft: Die Haltung der EU-Kommission gegenüber der Wasserprivatisierung

Wasser wird zum Wirtschafts‐ und Spekulationsgut, wie die Medien berichten. Die Interviews mit betroffenen Bürgerinnen und Bürgern, die von Preissteigerungen beim Kauf von Trinkwasser um die 400 % in wenigen Jahren berichten, lassen die Öffentlichkeit — verständlicherweise — skeptisch werden angesichts der Vorgehensweise bzw. der passiven Haltung der EU.

1.

Wie schätzt die Kommission die Folgen für die Bewohner und Bewohnerinnen betroffener Länder und Regionen ein?

2.

Wie bewertet die Kommission die Tatsache, dass das Ansehen der Kommission und der Union bei den Bürgerinnen und Bürgern sinkt und die Bürgerinnen und Bürger ihr Vertrauen verlieren, da sie von der Kommission und der Union erwarten, dass sie zumindest versuchen, den Zugang zu grundlegenden Ressourcen, wie zum Beispiel frischem Trinkwasser, für alle EU-Bürgerinnen und ‐Bürger zu gewährleisten?

Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-000749/13

an die Kommission

Angelika Werthmann (ALDE)

(24. Januar 2013)

Betrifft: Krisenländer sollen ihre Wasserreserven und ‐wirtschaft privatisieren

In ihrer Antwort vom 24. Mai 2012 auf die Anfrage vom 3. April 2012 zum Thema „Wasserwirtschaft und Privatisierung von Wasser“ (E-003561/2012) schreibt die Kommission: „Gemäß Artikel 345 des Vertrags über die Arbeitsweise der Europäischen Union (AEUV) lassen die Verträge die Eigentumsordnung in den verschiedenen Mitgliedstaaten unberührt. Die Entscheidung darüber, ob die Wasserversorgung privatisiert werden sollte oder nicht, liegt daher bei den Mitgliedstaaten, und die Kommission hat sich zu dieser Frage nicht geäußert.“

1.

Wie beurteilt die Kommission die Tatsache, dass in Medienberichten sowie in verschiedenen Social-Media-Seiten seit Mitte Dezember 2012 mehr und mehr der Eindruck entsteht, die Europäische Union zwinge die Krisenstaaten Europas dazu, ihre Wasserreserven zu privatisieren?

2.

Inwieweit trifft dieser Vorwurf der Öffentlichkeit zu, dass die Troika angeblich die Regierungen speziell dazu drängt, Wasserwerke und öffentliche Wasserreserven zu verkaufen, um den Haushalt zu konsolidieren?

Gemeinsame Antwort von Herrn Barnier im Namen der Kommission

(25. März 2013)

Die Kommission möchte der Frau Abgeordneten mitteilen, dass sie keine politischen Maßnahmen zur direkten oder indirekten Privatisierung der Wasserversorgung oder anderer Dienstleistungen in den Mitgliedstaaten setzt.

Die Kommission hat Kenntnis von einigen Berichten in deutschen und österreichischen Medien, in denen fälschlicherweise behauptet wird, dass die Kommission eine Privatisierung der Wasserversorgung anstrebe. Es handelt sich dabei um ein fehlerhaftes Verständnis des Legislativvorschlags zur Vergabe von Konzessionsverträgen. Die Kommission weist diese Behauptungen zurück und stellt klar, dass sie Wasser als öffentliches Gut ansieht, das für Bürger lebensnotwendig ist, und dass die Bewirtschaftung der Wasserressourcen in die Zuständigkeit der Mitgliedstaaten fällt. Die Kommission hat sichergestellt, dass ihr Vorschlag für eine Richtlinie über die Konzessionsvergabe die Autonomie der kommunalen Unternehmen hinsichtlich der Erbringung und Organisation der Dienstleistungen von allgemeinem wirtschaftlichem Interesse (einschließlich der Wasserversorgung) vollständig respektiert und fördert.

Die Kommission vertritt in Einklang mit Artikel 345 AEUV eine neutrale Position hinsichtlich der Frage, ob Wasserversorgungsunternehmen in privatem oder öffentlichem Besitz sind. EU-weit sind viele verschiedene Modelle vorhanden und es steht den nationalen Behörden frei, zu entscheiden, ob sie Dienstleistungen direkt oder über einen Dritten, insbesondere über einen privaten Wirtschaftsteilnehmer, anbieten möchten.

Der Wasserpreis in den Mitgliedstaaten wird nicht durch EU-Recht festgesetzt. Die EU-Wasserrahmenrichtlinie verpflichtet die Mitgliedstaaten lediglich zur Umsetzung einer Wasserpreispolitik, die ausreichende Anreize für eine effiziente Wassernutzung schafft. Den Mitgliedstaaten steht es frei, soziale, ökologische und wirtschaftliche Folgen sowie geographische und klimatische Bedingungen der betroffenen Region bzw. Regionen zu berücksichtigen.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000748/13

to the Commission

Angelika Werthmann (ALDE)

(24 January 2013)

Subject: The Commission's position on water privatisation

According to media reports, water is becoming a commodity which is subject to speculation. Interviews with citizens who report increases of around 400 % in the price of drinking water over a few years mean that that public is becoming understandably sceptical of the EU’s course of action, or rather its lack of action.

1.

What does the Commission believe the consequences will be for those living in the countries and regions affected?

2.

What is the Commission’s view of the fact that the reputation of the Commission and the EU is being damaged in the eyes of the citizens, and that these citizens are losing their confidence in the Commission and the EU, since they expect them to at least attempt to ensure access for all EU citizens to basic resources such as fresh drinking water?

Question for written answer E-000749/13

to the Commission

Angelika Werthmann (ALDE)

(24 January 2013)

Subject: Crisis countries should privatise their water supplies and water industries

In its answer on 24 May 2012 to the question on 3 April 2012 on ‘Water industry and the privatisation of water’ (E-003561/2012), the Commission states that: ‘Article 345 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) establishes that the Treaties shall in no way prejudice the rules in Member States governing the system of property ownership. Therefore, it is for Member States to decide whether water supply should be privatised or not, and the Commission has expressed no view on this matter.’

1.

What view does the Commission take of the argument, heard increasingly often in media reports and on various social media sites since mid-December 2012, that the European Union is forcing the European crisis countries to privatise their water supplies?

2.

To what extent is the public right to accuse the Troika of placing particular pressure on governments to sell waterworks and public water supplies in order to consolidate their budgets?

Joint answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(25 March 2013)

The Commission would like to inform the Honourable Member that it does not pursue any policy on the direct or indirect privatisation of water services or of any other services in Member States.

The Commission is aware of several reports in German and Austria media, wrongly alleging that the Commission intends to privatise the distribution of water, following an erroneous reading of the legislative proposal on the award of concession contracts. The Commission rejects such allegations and makes it clear that it recognises that water is a public good which is vital to citizens and that the management of water resources is a competence of Member States. The Commission made sure that its proposal for a directive on the award of concession contracts fully recognises and supports the autonomy of local authorities regarding the provision and organisation of services of general economic interest, including water.

The Commission position is neutral concerning the choice of a regime of public or private property of water utilities, in accordance with Article 345 of the TFEU, and EU-wide experience offers a variety of different models. National authorities, remain free to choose whether they provide the services directly or via a third party, notably a private economic operator.

The price of water in the Member States is not fixed under EC law. The EU Water Framework Directive only requires Member States to implement water pricing policies that provide an adequate incentive to an efficient water use. Member States are free to take into consideration social, environmental and economic effects as well as geographic and climatic conditions of the region or regions affected.

(Deutsche Fassung)

Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-000750/13

an die Kommission

Angelika Werthmann (ALDE)

(24. Januar 2013)

Betrifft: Jüdischer Friedhof in Margo im türkisch besetzten Teil Zyperns

Der jüdische Friedhof in Margo liegt im türkisch besetzten Teil Zyperns; es handelt sich allerdings auch um ein militärisches Sperrgebiet, und der Zugang ist der Öffentlichkeit ist seit 1992 verwehrt.

Neuere Fotos des Friedhofs zeugen davon, dass dieser Teil des Kulturerbes der Insel immer mehr verfällt.

Kann die Kommission eine ausführliche Antwort auf folgende Fragen erteilen:

Hat die Kommission Kenntnis von dem gegenwärtigen Zustand dieses Friedhofs?

Was gedenkt die Kommission (gegebenenfalls) zu unternehmen, um diesen Bestandteil des kulturellen Erbes wiederherzustellen, vor allem um den jüdischen Menschen, die dort begraben liegen, ein ehrendes Gedenken zu bewahren?

Beabsichtigt die Kommission, zur Restaurierung des Friedhofs mit Mitteln beizutragen, die dem Technischen Ausschuss für das kulturelle Erbe, in dem beide Volksgruppen vertreten sind, gewährt wurden? Wenn ja, welcher Betrag ist genau vorgesehen?

Wird die Kommission gegenüber der Türkei die Frage zur Sprache bringen, ob es erforderlich ist, ihre Streitkräfte aus diesem Bereich abzuziehen, damit jüdische Menschen den Friedhof im Einklang mit den grundlegenden Menschenrechten der Bewegungsfreiheit und der Freiheit der Religionsausübung wieder betreten können?

Antwort von Herrn Füle im Namen der Kommission

(21. März 2013)

Der Kommission ist der Zustand des Jüdischen Friedhofs in Margo, auf den die Frau Abgeordnete hinweist, nicht bekannt.

Nach Auffassung der Kommission tragen die Bemühungen beider Gemeinschaften zum Schutz des reichen Kulturerbes der Insel dazu bei, Vertrauen und Aussöhnung in Zypern zu fördern. Grundlage für die Bereitstellung der EU-Mittel, mit denen die Maßnahmen des unter der Schirmherrschaft der Vereinten Nationen tätigen Gemeinsamen Technischen Ausschusses für das kulturelle Erbe finanziert werden, ist eine Liste von elf bedeutenden religiösen und nicht-religiösen Kulturstätten, die von dem Ausschuss ausgewählt wurden. Der Jüdische Friedhof in Margo steht nicht auf der Liste.

Die von der Frau Abgeordneten angesprochene Thematik zeigt erneut, dass rasch eine umfassende Lösung der Zypern-Frage gefunden werden muss. In ihrer im Oktober 2012 veröffentlichten Mitteilung „Erweiterungsstrategie und wichtigste Herausforderungen für den Zeitraum 2012-2013“ (206) hat die Kommission hervorgehoben, dass die Verhandlungen wiederaufgenommen werden müssen, um sie zu einem raschen Abschluss zu bringen und die Türkei zu ermutigen, sich stärker an den Gesprächen zu beteiligen und sich konkret für diese zu engagieren.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000750/13

to the Commission

Angelika Werthmann (ALDE)

(24 January 2013)

Subject: Margo Jewish Cemetery in the Turkish occupied part of Cyprus

The Margo Jewish Cemetery is in the Turkish-occupied part of Cyprus but is also in a military zone, meaning that access to it is barred and has been since 1992.

Recent pictures of the cemetery show the worsening condition of this piece of the island’s cultural heritage.

1.

Is the Commission aware of the current status of this cemetery?

2.

What does the Commission intend to do, if anything, to restore this piece of cultural heritage, with particular regard to respect for the memory of the Jewish people who are buried there?

3.

Does the Commission have plans to contribute to the restoration of the cemetery through the funds allocated to the Bi-Communal Technical Committee on Cultural Heritage? If so, what will be the exact sum foreseen?

4.

Will the Commission raise with Turkey the question of the need to withdraw its army from the area so that the cemetery is accessible to Jewish people, in accordance with respect for the fundamental human rights of the freedom of movement and religion? Please be specific in your response.

Answer given by Mr Füle on behalf of the Commission

(21 March 2013)

The Commission is not aware of the current condition of the Margo Jewish Cemetery the Honourable Member refers to.

The European Commission considers that efforts by both communities to protect the island's rich cultural heritage contribute to trust and reconciliation in Cyprus. The EU funds allocated for the activities of the bi-Communal Technical Committee on Cultural Heritage operating under UN auspices are based on a list of 11 priority religious and non-religious monuments agreed by the Committee. The Margo Jewish Cemetery is not part of that list.

The issue raised by the Honourable Member once again underlines the need to reach a rapid comprehensive settlement of the Cyprus problem. In its October 2012 Communication (207) on the Enlargement Strategy and Main Challenges 2012-2013, the Commission underlined the necessity to re-launch the negotiations with the aim of reaching a swift conclusion of the talks and encouraged Turkey to increase in concrete terms its commitment and contribution to the talks.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000752/13

to the Commission

Nessa Childers (S&D)

(24 January 2013)

Subject: Transparency register

According to the terms of the interinstitutional agreement of June 2011 on the establishment of a Commission/Parliament Joint Transparency Register, the register shall be subject to a review no later than two years following its entry into operation.

1.

Can the Commission clarify when this review is scheduled to take place and what the process will be?

2.

Will the Commission commit itself to fully involve and consult Parliament and its committees in this regard?

3.

How does the Commission intend to ensure that Parliament’s opinions and suggestions for improvement can fully be expressed and taken into account in the forthcoming review of the current system, in particular as regards the recommendations made in the resolution presented by Parliament in May 2011 for a mandatory register requiring detailed financial disclosure, including the names of lobbyists

3.

How does the Commission intend to ensure that Parliament’s opinions and suggestions for improvement can fully be expressed and taken into account in the forthcoming review of the current system, in particular as regards the recommendations made in the resolution presented by Parliament in May 2011 for a mandatory register requiring detailed financial disclosure, including the names of lobbyists

 (208)

4.

What will the Commission do, in accordance with the wishes of Parliament as expressed in its May 2011 resolution, to overcome the obstacles identified in the past to making registration mandatory?

5.

Reports by NGOs have documented serious shortcomings in the current register, noting that a large number of companies and lobby groups remain unregistered and that the financial information provided in the register is imprecise and unreliable. This points to the need for major changes in line with Parliament’s May 2011 resolution, which calls for a mandatory register with more detailed financial disclosure requirements. Can the Commission confirm that such changes will require amendments to the interinstitutional agreement between the Commission and Parliament? Will the Commission, in the context of the review, initiate a discussion with Parliament and its committees on the changes needed to be made in the interinstitutional agreement?

Answer given by Mr Barroso on behalf of the Commission

(14 March 2013)

1.

The joint EP-COM secretariat of the register made a public consultation in 2012 and subsequently published the first annual report on the operations of the register. Targeted stakeholder dialogue meetings with umbrella European wide organisations took place to discuss the report and to prepare a stakeholder meeting with the two Vice-Presidents in charge of transparency in the Parliament and the Commission.

2.

The review exercise is a joint exercise between the Parliament and the Commission.

3.

It is not for the Commission to determine how Parliament will organise the review process.

4 and 5. Any answer to questions 4 and 5 would prejudge the analysis and the reflection to be developed as part of the review process and therefore cannot be answered at this stage.

(Slovenska različica)

Vprašanje za pisni odgovor E-000753/13

za Komisijo

Mojca Kleva Kekuš (S&D)

(24. januar 2013)

Zadeva: Povečanje števila splavov fetusov ženskega spola v Evropi

V začetku leta 2013 so mediji poročali o tem, da se v Evropi splavi več ženskih fetusov, kakor se je doslej domnevalo, ta težava pa je najbolj očitna v balkanskih državah.

Študija, ki jo je nedavno opravil Sklad Združenih narodov za prebivalstvo, ugotavlja, da se taka selekcija na podlagi spola opravlja v Albaniji, na Kosovu in v Črni gori. To se dogaja zlasti zaradi tradicionalne delitve vlog po spolu, kjer še vedno obstaja predstava, da so moški v privilegiranem položaju. Torej so ženske diskriminirane še pred rojstvom.

Glede na to, da so Albanija, Črna gora in Kosovo države kandidatke in morebitne države kandidatke za pristop k Evropski uniji, je to vprašanje, ki zadeva EU.

1.

Ali je Komisija seznanjena s to težavo?

2.

Bo to vprašanje vplivalo na pristopna pogajanja?

Odgovor g. Füleja v imenu Komisije

(20. marec 2013)

Komisija je v boju proti vsem oblikam nasilja nad ženskami zavezana k močnemu političnemu odzivu, kot je zapisano v Stockholmskem programu in Strategiji za enakost žensk in moških (2010–2015) (209).

Komisija je seznanjena z nedavnim poročilom UNFPA z naslovom „Neravnovesje med spoloma pri rojstvu: trenutni trendi, posledice in vpliv na politike“ ter s problemom domnevno po spolu selektivnih splavov v nekaterih državah širitve.

Medtem ko EU na področju kazenskega prava v zvezi s splavom nima pristojnosti, so popolno spoštovanje človekovih pravic, pravic žensk in enakost spolov osnova pristopnega procesa kot del pristopnih pogajanj in strukturnega dialoga z državami ter tudi v smislu finančne in tehnične pomoči državam širitve.

Komisija si bo tudi z dviganjem ozaveščenosti še naprej prizadevala za dosledno spoštovanje temeljnih pravic, predvsem pa pravic žensk in za enakost spolov.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000753/13

to the Commission

Mojca Kleva Kekuš (S&D)

(24 January 2013)

Subject: Rise in abortion of female foetuses in Europe

At the beginning of 2013, it was reported in the media that more female foetuses were being aborted in Europe than previously thought, with the problem being particularly apparent in the Balkan countries.

A recent study by the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) found that this form of gender selection was occurring in Albania, Kosovo and Montenegro. This is largely due to traditional gender roles, where men are still considered to be in a privileged position. Women are therefore discriminated against even before birth.

As Albania, Montenegro and Kosovo are candidate countries and potential candidate countries to join the European Union, this is an issue which also affects the EU.

1.

Is the Commission aware of this problem?

2.

Will this issue have any influence on the accession negotiations?

Answer given by Mr Füle on behalf of the Commission

(20 March 2013)

The Commission is committed to a strong policy response to combat all forms of violence against women, as seen in the Stockholm Programme and the strategy for equality between women and men (2010-2015) (210).

The Commission is aware of the recent UNFPA report entitled ‘Sex imbalances at birth : current trends, consequences and policy implications’ and the fact that there is reportedly a problem of sex-selective abortions in some of the enlargement countries.

While the EU has no competence in the area of criminal law relating to the issue of abortion, the full respect of human rights, women's rights and gender equality is at the heart of the accession process, both as part of the structural dialogues with the countries and the accession negotiations, as well as in terms of financial and technical assistance provided to the enlargement countries.

The Commission is committed to pursuing its efforts, including through awareness-raising campaigns, to ensure the full respect of fundamental rights in general and women's rights and gender equality in particular.

(Nederlandse versie)

Vraag met verzoek om schriftelijk antwoord E-000754/13

aan de Commissie

Saïd El Khadraoui (S&D)

(24 januari 2013)

Betreft: Problemen met de FYRA op de Belgische en Nederlandse spoorwegen

Sinds 9 december 2012 rijdt de nieuwe hogesnelheidstrein FYRA tussen Amsterdam en Brussel. Het project kwam tot stand door een samenwerking tussen de Belgische spoorwegoperator NMBS en de Nederlandse spoorwegen NS. De treinen die de voorbije weken tussen de twee bestemmingen spoorden waren eigendom van NS. Maar de NMBS heeft ook treinstellen besteld bij dezelfde fabrikant, het Italiaanse bedrijf AnsaldoBreda. Vanaf de start bleek de FYRA geconfronteerd te worden met zeer veel operationele problemen, wat leidde tot veel vertragingen, uitgevallen treinen en ontevreden reizigers. Op de koop toe blijkt er ook een probleem met de veiligheid te zijn. De Belgische veiligheidsinstantie DVIS heeft de FYRA verboden nog in België te rijden nadat er stukken van het onderstel van de trein loskwamen tijdens het rijden, mogelijk door het koude weer. Momenteel rijdt de FYRA niet meer en wordt gezocht naar een alternatieve oplossing voor de reizigers.

Deze gebeurtenissen roepen vragen op over de kwaliteit van de constructeur, de certificering van deze treinen en de bevoegdheden op Europees niveau op dit  terrein.

1.

Is de Commissie op de hoogte van de problemen die de hogesnelheidstrein FYRA heeft gekend de voorbije weken in België en Nederland? Is de Commissie op de hoogte van gelijkaardige situaties met dezelfde of andere fabrikanten in de EU?

2.

Is de Commissie van mening dat de certificering van het rollend materieel correct gebeurd is door de bevoegde Belgische en Nederlandse instanties? Indien ja, wat is er dan wel fout gegaan?

3.

Heeft de Commissie een toezichthoudende rol in deze certificering, zeker met betrekking tot het veiligheidsaspect?

Antwoord van de heer Kallas namens de Commissie

(13 maart 2013)

1.

Ja. De Commissie is op de hoogte van dit probleem, waarover de jongste weken uitvoerig is bericht in de pers. In de media werd ook verwezen naar vergelijkbare problemen in andere landen. De Commissie is via de officiële kanalen echter niet in kennis gesteld van die problemen.

2.

De Commissie beschikt niet over de nodige informatie om te kunnen beoordelen of de vergunningsprocedure correct is toegepast. Bij die procedure zijn, naast de nationale veiligheidsinstanties, ook de spoorwegondernemingen, de infrastructuurbeheerders (voor eventuele testen op het net), de fabrikanten en de conformiteitsbeoordelingsinstanties betrokken.

3.

Het proces voor de goedkeuring van spoorvoertuigen wordt op EU-niveau geregeld door Richtlijn 2008/57/EG inzake de interoperabiliteit van het spoorwegsysteem in de Gemeenschap. In die richtlijn wordt in de vergunningsprocedure geen toezichthoudende rol toegekend aan de Commissie of het Europees Spoorwegbureau. De Commissie heeft in het kader van het vierde spoorwegpakket (211) echter voorgesteld om de rol van het Europees Spoorwegbureau in de vergunningsprocedure te versterken.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000754/13

to the Commission

Saïd El Khadraoui (S&D)

(24 January 2013)

Subject: Problems with the Fyra service on the Belgian and Dutch railways

The new high speed train service Fyra has been running between Amsterdam and Brussels since December 9, 2012. The project was the result of a collaboration between the Belgian railway operator NMBS and the Dutch Railway Company NS. The trains being used in recent weeks between the two destinations are owned by NS. However, the NMBS has also ordered trains from the same manufacturer, the Italian company AnsaldoBreda. Right from the start, Fyra has encountered many operational problems which led to many delays, cancelled trains and disgruntled travellers. On top of that, there also appear to be safety-related issues. The Belgian security regulator, DVIS, has banned Fyra from operating in Belgium after parts of the undercarriage fell off the train while it was in motion, possibly due to the cold weather. Fyra is therefore not currently operating and an alternative solution is being sought for travellers.

These events have raised questions about the quality of the manufacturer, the certification of these trains and the responsibilities at a European level in this field.

1.

Is the Commission aware of the problems that the high speed Fyra train service has faced in recent weeks in Belgium and the Netherlands? Is the Commission aware of similar situations with the same or other manufacturers in the EU?

2.

Is the Commission of the opinion that the certification of rolling stock was done correctly by the relevant Belgian and Dutch authorities? If yes, what went wrong?

3.

Does the Commission play a supervisory role in this certification process, especially when it comes to the safety aspect?

Answer given by Mr Kallas on behalf of the Commission

(13 March 2013)

1.

Yes. The Commission is aware of this problem as it was extensively reported by the press in the last weeks. The press also mentioned similar problems in other countries. However, these problems were not notified to the Commission through the official channels.

2.

The Commission does not have the elements to judge about the correctness of the authorisation process, which by the way involves not only the national safety authorities, but also the railway undertaking, the infrastructure manager (for on-site testing, if needed), the manufacturer and the conformity assessment bodies.

3.

The authorisation process of railway vehicles is regulated at EU level by Directive 2008/57/EC on the interoperability of the rail system in the Community. Such Directive does not give to the Commission or the European Railway Agency any supervisory role in the authorisation process. However, a reinforced role of the European Railway Agency in the authorisation process has been proposed by the Commission in the context of the 4th railway package

3.

The authorisation process of railway vehicles is regulated at EU level by Directive 2008/57/EC on the interoperability of the rail system in the Community. Such Directive does not give to the Commission or the European Railway Agency any supervisory role in the authorisation process. However, a reinforced role of the European Railway Agency in the authorisation process has been proposed by the Commission in the context of the 4th railway package

 (212)

(Versión española)

Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-000755/13

a la Comisión

Giommaria Uggias (ALDE), Andrea Zanoni (ALDE), Lara Comi (PPE), Antonio Cancian (PPE), Ramon Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE), Pino Arlacchi (S&D), Roberta Angelilli (PPE), Ivo Vajgl (ALDE) y Marian Harkin (ALDE)

(25 de enero de 2013)

Asunto: Propuesta de acuerdo de cooperación internacional con los países del hemisferio sur para el intercambio de dispositivos de lucha contra incendios

En los últimos días, se ha registrado en Australia una ola de incendios forestales que ha afectado principalmente a la zona más poblada del país, a saber, los estados de Nueva Gales del Sur y de Victoria, así como al estado de Tasmania. Debido a las elevadas temperaturas, que han batido récords, y a los fuertes vientos, las llamas han calcinado más de 350 000 hectáreas de bosques, cultivos y pastos, y amenazan la seguridad de la población civil.

El fenómeno de los incendios forestales también afecta muy de cerca a Europa y, en particular, a la región del Mediterráneo, en la que, según los datos del EFFIS (Sistema europeo de información sobre incendios forestales), se han registrado en los últimos 30 años 1 494 219 incendios que han calcinado un total de casi 15 millones de hectáreas de tierra. La dimensión transfronteriza de los incendios forestales ha llevado a las autoridades de los Estados miembros a poner en marcha una serie de acciones coordinadas y multilaterales en el marco del Mecanismo Comunitario de Protección Civil, que es un instrumento de la Unión Europea diseñado para atender las emergencias que se producen tanto dentro como fuera de la Unión Europea además de los 27 Estados miembros, forman parte del Mecanismo otros países como Noruega, Islandia, Liechtenstein, Croacia y Macedonia mediante la puesta en común de los recursos de todos los Estados miembros.

La proliferación de incendios forestales se concentra en los meses de verano y la llegada de la estación estival en el hemisferio sur coincide con el comienzo del invierno en el hemisferio norte y viceversa.

Los Estados miembros de la UE disponen de una importante flota aérea, en concreto Canadair, que apenas se utiliza durante el invierno.

Estos aviones de lucha contra incendios, de acuerdo con los especialistas del sector, podrían viajar de un hemisferio a otro en cuestión de unos pocos días

Habida cuenta de lo que antecede.

1.

¿Podría indicar la Comisión si estima oportuno promover un acuerdo de cooperación internacional con los países del hemisferio sur afectados por el fenómeno de los incendios forestales que prevea un suministro mutuo de dispositivos de lucha contra incendios, como, por ejemplo, los aviones Canadair, así como el intercambio de personal cualificado y especializado en el ámbito de la extinción de incendios?

2.

¿Podría considerarse dicho acuerdo de cooperación mutua como una ampliación extraterritorial del Mecanismo Comunitario de Protección Civil, de modo que pueda beneficiarse de los procedimientos de coordinación adoptados sobre la base de dicho instrumento?

Respuesta de la Sra.Georgieva en nombre de la Comisión

(7 de marzo de 2013)

El 1 de septiembre de 2008, la Comisión Europea y el Departamento de Gestión de Emergencias de la Fiscalía General de la Commonwealth de Australia suscribieron un acuerdo administrativo de cooperación en el ámbito de la protección civil. El acuerdo queda limitado al intercambio de información y buenas prácticas y no abarca la cooperación operativa en la gestión de catástrofes.

La UE está negociando asimismo con Australia un acuerdo marco a través del cual ambas partes tienen previsto impulsar la gestión de catástrofes y cooperar como proceda a fin de incrementar la resiliencia de la sociedad y de las infraestructuras.

La cuestión de la puesta en común de recursos aéreos por parte de Europa y del Hemisferio Sur aprovechando la alternancia de sus respectivas estaciones estivales ya había sido explorada parcialmente en un estudio realizado en 2011, en el que se señalaron algunos problemas de orden práctico (relacionados, en particular, con las diferencias existentes entre los tipos de avión utilizados, los tipos de incendio a combatir y los tipos de paisaje) y se identificó una serie de medidas previas que era preciso adoptar (por ejemplo, la inversión previa en formación común para los pilotos, el intercambio de conocimientos tácticos en materia de técnicas de supresión, etc). La Comisión seguirá estudiando estas cuestiones en el marco de la aplicación de la nueva legislación sobre protección civil.

(Versione italiana)

Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-000755/13

alla Commissione

Giommaria Uggias (ALDE), Andrea Zanoni (ALDE), Lara Comi (PPE), Antonio Cancian (PPE), Ramon Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE), Pino Arlacchi (S&D), Roberta Angelilli (PPE), Ivo Vajgl (ALDE) e Marian Harkin (ALDE)

(25 gennaio 2013)

Oggetto: Proposta di accordo di cooperazione internazionale con i Paesi dell'emisfero australe per lo scambio di mezzi antincendio

Nei giorni scorsi l'Australia è stata attraversata da un'ondata di incendi boschivi che hanno interessato prevalentemente la parte più popolosa del Paese, cioè gli Stati del New South Wales e Victoria, oltre che la Tasmania. Alimentati dalle temperature record e dai forti venti, i roghi hanno incenerito oltre 350.000 ettari di foreste, colture e pascoli, minacciando l'incolumità della popolazione civile.

Il fenomeno degli incendi boschivi interessa da vicino anche l"Europa, in particolare l'area mediterranea, dove secondo i dati EFFIS (Sistema di informazione europeo per gli incendi boschivi) i roghi negli ultimi 30 anni sono stati 1.494.219, per un totale di quasi 15 milioni di ettari di terra andati in fumo. La dimensione transfrontaliera degli incendi boschivi ha indotto le autorità degli Stati membri a porre in essere interventi coordinati e multilaterali nell'ambito del Meccanismo europeo di protezione civile, strumento dell'Unione europea predisposto per rispondere alle emergenze che si verificano in territorio europeo e extraeuropeo (oltre ai 27 Stati membri, ne fanno parte anche Norvegia, Islanda, Lietchtenstein, Croazia e Macedonia), attraverso la condivisione delle risorse di tutti gli Stati membri.

Considerato che il proliferare di incendi boschivi si concentra nei mesi estivi e che l'avvento della stagione estiva nell'emisfero australe coincide con l'inizio dell'inverno nell'emisfero boreale e viceversa; che gli Stati membri dell'UE dispongono di una consistente flotta aerea, soprattutto Canadair, che durante l'inverno rimane pressoché inutilizzata e che tali velivoli antincendio, secondo gli addetti ai lavori, sarebbero in grado di viaggiare da un emisfero ad un altro nel giro di pochi giorni;

può la Commissione far sapere:

se ritiene utile promuovere un accordo di cooperazione internazionale con i Paesi dell'emisfero australe interessati dal fenomeno degli incendi boschivi che preveda la fornitura reciproca di mezzi antincendio quali i Canadair, nonché lo scambio di personale qualificato e di competenze specializzate nel campo dello spegnimento degli incendi;

se tale accordo di mutua cooperazione possa configurarsi come un'estensione extraterritoriale del Meccanismo europeo di protezione civile, così da poter beneficiare delle procedure di coordinamento adottate sulla base di tale strumento?

Risposta di Kristalina Georgieva a nome della Commissione

(7 marzo 2013)

Il 1° settembre 2008 la Commissione e il Dipartimento dell’Attorney General per la gestione delle emergenze del Commonwealth dell’Australia hanno firmato un accordo amministrativo in materia di cooperazione nel settore della protezione civile. L’accordo è limitato allo scambio di informazioni e di migliori prassi e non riguarda la cooperazione operativa nella gestione delle catastrofi.

L’UE sta inoltre negoziando con l’Australia un accordo quadro in cui entrambe le parti dovrebbero impegnarsi nel rafforzamento della gestione delle catastrofi e, ove opportuno, nella cooperazione volta a migliorare le capacità di resilienza da parte della società e delle infrastrutture.

La questione dello scambio dei mezzi aerei tra l’Europa e l’emisfero meridionale durante le rispettive stagioni estive è stata parzialmente esaminata in un studio (213) del 2011. In questo studio sono stati individuati una serie di problemi pratici (in particolare in relazione ai diversi tipi di velivoli utilizzati e ai diversi tipi di incendio e di territori interessati) e di eventuali misure che andrebbero adottate (ad esempio investimenti preliminari nella formazione comune dei piloti, scambio di conoscenze tecniche per le tattiche di spegnimento, ecc.). La Commissione continuerà a esaminare tali questioni nell’ambito dell’attuazione della nuova legislazione in materia di protezione civile.

(Slovenska različica)

Vprašanje za pisni odgovor E-000755/13

za Komisijo

Giommaria Uggias (ALDE), Andrea Zanoni (ALDE), Lara Comi (PPE), Antonio Cancian (PPE), Ramon Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE), Pino Arlacchi (S&D), Roberta Angelilli (PPE), Ivo Vajgl (ALDE) in Marian Harkin (ALDE)

(25. januar 2013)

Zadeva: Predlog mednarodnega sporazuma o sodelovanju z državami južne poloble za izmenjavo protipožarnih sredstev

V minulih dneh je Avstralijo zajel val gozdnih požarov, zlasti najbolj naseljeni zvezni državi Novi Južni Wales in Viktorijo ter Tasmanijo. Ognjeni zublji so zaradi visokih temperatur in močnega vetra uničili več kot 350 000 hektarov gozdov, obdelanih površin in pašnikov ter ogrožali civilno prebivalstvo.

Gozdni požari so pojav, ki ga dobro pozna tudi Evropa, zlasti sredozemska območja, kjer je bilo po podatkih Evropskega informacijskega sistema za gozdne požare (EFFIS) v zadnjih 30 letih zabeleženih 1 494 219 požarov, v katerih je bilo uničenih skoraj 15 milijonov hektarov površin. Čezmejna razsežnost gozdnih požarov je spodbudila oblasti držav članic, da so s skupno uporabo sredstev vseh držav članic začele izvajati usklajene in večstranske ukrepe v okviru evropskega mehanizma za civilno zaščito, instrumenta Evropske unije za odziv na izredne okoliščine, do katerih pride na evropskem ozemlju ali zunaj njega (poleg 27 držav članic sodelujejo tudi Norveška, Islandija, Lihtenštajn, Hrvaška in Makedonija).

Ker so gozdni požari pogostejši v poletnih mesecih in ker poletje na južni polobli sovpada z zimo na severni polobli in obratno, ker imajo države članice EU dokaj veliko zračno floto, zlasti kanaderje, ki so v zimskem času skoraj neuporabljeni, in ker bi lahko glede na mnenje strokovnjakov ta protipožarna letala pripotovala z ene poloble na drugo v nekaj dneh,

ali Komisija lahko navede:

ali meni, da bi bilo treba spodbuditi dejavnosti za sklenitev mednarodnega sporazuma o sodelovanju z državami južne poloble, ki jih prizadenejo gozdni požari, ki bi predvideval vzajemno dobavo protipožarnih sredstev, kot so kanaderji, ter izmenjavo kvalificiranega osebja, posebej usposobljenega za gašenje požarov;

ali bi se sporazum vzajemnega sodelovanja lahko oblikoval v sklopu zunajozemeljske razsežnosti evropskega mehanizma za civilno zaščito, da bi lahko izkoristil postopke usklajevanja, sprejete na podlagi tega instrumenta?

Odgovor Kristaline Georgieve v imenu Komisije

(7. marec 2013)

Komisija in oddelek za krizno upravljanje, ki deluje v okviru avstralskega vrhovnega tožilstva, sta 1. septembra 2008 podpisala upravni dogovor o sodelovanju na področju civilne zaščite. Dogovor je omejen na izmenjavo informacij in dobrih praks ter ne vključuje operativnega sodelovanja pri obvladovanju nesreč.

EU se poleg tega z Avstralijo pogaja tudi o okvirnem sporazumu, v skladu s katerim bi obe strani spodbujali ukrepe na področju obvladovanja nesreč in po potrebi sodelovali z namenom povečanja odpornosti družbe in infrastrukture.

Vprašanje izmenjave zračnih plovil med evropskimi državami in državami južne poloble v poletnih oz. zimskih mesecih je bilo delno obravnavano v študiji iz leta 2011 (214), v kateri so bili navedeni številni praktični pomisleki (zlasti zaradi različnih vrst uporabljenih zračnih plovil, različnih vrst požarov in različnih pokrajin oz. reliefa) ter ukrepi, ki bi jih bilo treba sprejeti pred začetkom takega sodelovanja (npr. predhodne naložbe v skupno usposabljanje pilotov, izmenjava taktičnega znanja in izkušenj o tehnikah gašenja požarov ipd.). Komisija bo ta vprašanja še naprej proučevala v okviru izvajanja nove zakonodaje s področja civilne zaščite.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000755/13

to the Commission

Giommaria Uggias (ALDE), Andrea Zanoni (ALDE), Lara Comi (PPE), Antonio Cancian (PPE), Ramon Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE), Pino Arlacchi (S&D), Roberta Angelilli (PPE), Ivo Vajgl (ALDE) and Marian Harkin (ALDE)

(25 January 2013)

Subject: Proposal for an international cooperation agreement with southern hemisphere countries to exchange fire-fighting resources

Over the last few days, Australia has been struck by a wave of forest fires that have mainly affected the most populous part of the country, namely the states of New South Wales and Victoria, as well as Tasmania. Fed by record temperatures and strong winds, the fires have incinerated more than 350 000 hectares of forests, crops and pastures, threatening the civil population’s safety.

The issue of forest fires also closely concerns Europe, particularly the Mediterranean area, where, according to data from EFFIS (European Forest Fire Information System) there have been 1 494 219 fires over the last 30 years, with a total of almost 15 million hectares going up in smoke. The cross-border dimension of forest fires has led the authorities of the Member States to implement coordinated and multilateral measures within the framework of the European Civil Protection Mechanism, a system set up by the European Union to respond to emergencies both within and outside the EU (in addition to the 27 Member States, Norway, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Croatia and Macedonia are also members), by sharing the resources of all the Member States.

The proliferation of forest fires mainly occurs in the summer months, and the start of the summer season in the southern hemisphere coincides with the start of winter in the northern hemisphere and vice versa. The Member States of the EU possess a sizeable air fleet, particularly Canadair, which remains almost unused during the winter, and those who work in the industry say that these fire-righting aircraft could travel from one hemisphere to the other in just a few days.

Can the Commission answer the following:

Does it consider it useful to bring about an international cooperation agreement with southern hemisphere countries affected by forest fires that provides for the reciprocal supply of fire-fighting resources such as Canadair, as well as the exchange of qualified and competent personnel specialised in extinguishing fires?

Could such a mutual cooperation agreement be set up as an extension of the European Civil Protection Mechanism, so as to benefit from the coordination procedures adopted on the basis of this instrument?

Answer given by Ms Georgieva on behalf of the Commission

(7 March 2013)

The Commission and the Attorney-General's Department of Emergency Management of the Commonwealth of Australia have signed on 1st September 2008 an Administrative Arrangement on cooperation in the field of Civil Protection. The Arrangement is limited to the exchange of information and best practice and does not cover operational cooperation in disaster management.

The EU is also negotiating with Australia a Framework Agreement, in which both parties are expected to agree to promote Disaster Management and to cooperate as appropriate to increase the resilience of society and infrastructures.

The question of sharing aerial assets between Europe and the Southern hemisphere in alternating summer seasons has been partially explored in a 2011 study (215) which identified a number of practical concerns (in particular relating to the different types of aircraft used, the different types of fires involved and the different types of landscapes involved) and prior steps to be taken (e.g. prior investment in common training for pilots, exchange of tactical knowhow on suppression techniques, etc.). The Commission will continue to explore these issues within the framework of the implementation of the new civil protection legislation.

(Deutsche Fassung)

Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-000756/13

an die Kommission

Michael Cramer (Verts/ALE) und Eva Lichtenberger (Verts/ALE)

(25. Januar 2013)

Betrifft: Schulden der ÖBB und der Bundeshaushalt Österreichs

Die anhaltende Staatsschuldenkrise hat in aller Deutlichkeit die Wichtigkeit einer wahrheitsgemäßen Abbildung der Schulden der öffentlichen Hand gezeigt. Eurostat hat deshalb im Herbst 2010 das „Manual on Government Deficit and Debt“ (MGDD — Handbuch zum Defizit und Schuldenstand des Staates) revidiert. Diese Revision hatte auch für den Haushalt der Republik Österreich Bedeutung. So wurden in der Folge bislang nicht im laufenden Defizit bzw. im Schuldenstand ausgewiesene Schulden der Österreichischen Bundesbahnen (ÖBB) teilweise neu verbucht. Nicht zum Schuldenstand hinzugerechnet wurden jedoch die mit dem Bahnausbau bis zum Jahr 2007 eingegangenen Schulden. Dies wurde damit begründet, dass erst im Jahr 2007 der Bund eine formelle Verpflichtung übernommen hatte, zumindest 70 % der Finanzverbindlichkeiten über die Laufzeit hinweg zu übernehmen (216).

Kann die Kommission dazu folgende Fragen beantworten:

Ist es mit den geltenden europäischen Regeln, insbesondere dem „Manual on Government Deficit and Debt“, vereinbar, dass die vor 2007 eingegangen Schulden nicht im Staatshaushalt der Republik Österreich berücksichtigt werden, obwohl in der Vergangenheit — zuletzt im Jahr 2004 in Höhe von 6,1 Mrd. EUR — spätere Schuldenübernahmen durch die öffentliche Hand erfolgt sind und der Geschäftsbericht der ÖBB den Vorbehalt beinhaltet, „dass der Konzernabschluss zum 31. Dezember 2006 unter der Annahme erstellt ist, dass seitens der Republik Österreich im Zeitablauf jedenfalls Zuschüsse gem. § 43 Abs. 2 Bundesbahngesetz in einer dem effektuierten Investitionsvolumen jeweils angepassten Höhe geleistet werden und daher kein Erfordernis besteht, Vorsorgen für nicht erlösgedeckte Aufwendungen zu bilden (217)“?

Von den laufenden Haftungen für Schulden der ÖBB werden nur 70 % dem Bund zugerechnet, die restlichen 30 % soll die ÖBB aus dem Betrieb finanzieren. In welcher Form prüft Eurostat die Fähigkeit eines Unternehmens wie der ÖBB, Schulden und Zinsen bezahlen zu können, sowie die daraus resultierenden Risiken für den Staatshaushalt?

Die von Eurostat formulierten Regeln verlangen explizit eine Zuordnung der Schulden aufgrund der de facto und nicht lediglich de iure eingegangenen Verpflichtungen. Wie wird Eurostat diesen Anspruch im oben beschriebenen Falle durchsetzen?

Wie plant Eurostat, künftig sogenannte „Haftungen“ der Gebietskörperschaften bei der Berechnung des Schuldenstandes zu berücksichtigen, und welche Auswirkungen hätte dies im oben genannten Fall?

Antwort von Herrn Šemeta im Namen der Kommission

(19. März 2013)

In Reaktion auf die Fragen der Frau und des Herrn Abgeordneten ist zu betonen, dass Eurostat zusammen mit den österreichischen statistischen Behörden über mehrere Jahre hinweg die Sektorzuordnung der ÖBB Infrastruktur AG, die statistische Behandlung ihrer Verbindlichkeiten und die Verbuchung von Transaktionen zwischen dem Unternehmen und dem Staat aufmerksam verfolgt hat. Die endgültigen Ergebnisse dieser Beobachtungen wurden von Eurostat nach Besuchen in Österreich und einer bilateralen Beratung veröffentlicht und können auf der Eurostat-Webseite Finanzstatistik des Sektors Staats (GFS) (218) eingesehen werden.

1.

In Eurostats Beratungsschreiben vom Februar 2011 an die österreichischen Behörden

1.

In Eurostats Beratungsschreiben vom Februar 2011 an die österreichischen Behörden

 (219)  (220)

2.

Das Handbuch zum Defizit und Schuldenstand des Staates stellt restriktive Bedingungen für die Zurechnung staatlich garantierter Schulden öffentlicher Kapitalgesellschaften zum Schuldenstand des Staates auf

2.

Das Handbuch zum Defizit und Schuldenstand des Staates stellt restriktive Bedingungen für die Zurechnung staatlich garantierter Schulden öffentlicher Kapitalgesellschaften zum Schuldenstand des Staates auf

 (221)

3.

Siehe oben.

4.

Wie oben erklärt, wurden die einschlägigen statistischen Regeln in diesem Fall im Einklang mit ihrer Anwendung in den EU-Mitgliedstaaten angewendet. An dieser Stelle soll betont werden, dass Eurostat zwecks Datenüberprüfung übermittelte Informationen zu staatlichen Bürgschaften, Beteiligungen des Staates an öffentlichen Kapitalgesellschaften und den Schulden öffentlicher Kapitalgesellschaften erfasst und verwendet

4.

Wie oben erklärt, wurden die einschlägigen statistischen Regeln in diesem Fall im Einklang mit ihrer Anwendung in den EU-Mitgliedstaaten angewendet. An dieser Stelle soll betont werden, dass Eurostat zwecks Datenüberprüfung übermittelte Informationen zu staatlichen Bürgschaften, Beteiligungen des Staates an öffentlichen Kapitalgesellschaften und den Schulden öffentlicher Kapitalgesellschaften erfasst und verwendet

 (222)

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000756/13

to the Commission

Michael Cramer (Verts/ALE) and Eva Lichtenberger (Verts/ALE)

(25 January 2013)

Subject: ÖBB debts and the Austrian federal budget

The ongoing public debt crisis has clearly highlighted the importance of accurately reporting public debts. It was for this reason that Eurostat revised its Manual on Government Deficit and Debt (MGDD) in autumn 2010, which had significant consequences inter alia for the budget of the Republic of Austria. For example, it meant that debts incurred by the Austrian State Railways (ÖBB) which had previously been omitted from the running deficit or government debt were in some instances reclassified. However, debts incurred before 2007 for rail expansion projects were not added to the government debt. The reason given for this was that it was only in 2007 that the federal government undertook formally to take on at least 70 % of financial liabilities over the entire term of such liabilities. (223)

Can the Commission answer the following:

Can it be regarded as compatible with current European rules, in particular the Manual on Government Deficit and Debt, that debts incurred before 2007 are not included in the national budget of the Republic of Austria, even though the government has subsequently taken on such debts in the past — to the tune of EUR 6.1 000 000 000 on the last occasion in 2004 — and the ÖBB’s annual report contains the proviso that, ‘the consolidated accounts of 31 December 2006 have been compiled on the assumption that the Republic of Austria will grant subsidies over time pursuant to Article 43(2) of the Federal Rail Act according to the actual volume of investment and that it is therefore unnecessary to make provision for expenditure not covered by revenues.’ (224)?

Only 70 % of current liabilities for debts incurred by the ÖBB are assigned to the federal government, and the ÖBB is supposed to service the remaining 30 % from its own operations. How does Eurostat assess whether a company such as the ÖBB is able to repay its debts and interest and the associated risks to the national budget?

The rules formulated by Eurostat expressly require debts to be assigned on the basis of commitments undertaken in fact rather than merely in law. How will Eurostat enforce this requirement in the abovementioned case?

How is Eurostat planning to take account of similar ‘liabilities’ of public authorities when calculating government debt in future, and what impact would this have on the abovementioned case?

Answer given by Mr Šemeta on behalf of the Commission

(19 March 2013)

In response to the questions raised by the Honourable Members of Parliament, it is to be underlined that Eurostat has closely followed with the Austrian statistical authorities over a number of years the sector classification of ÖBB Infrastruktur AG, the statistical treatment of its liabilities and recording of transactions between the company and government. These discussions have been published by Eurostat in its final findings of visits to Austria and in its bilateral advice, available on Eurostat’s government finance statistics website (225).

1.

Eurostat’s February 2011 letter of advice to the Austrian authorities (226) sets out the statistical analysis of its debt, based on ESA95 statistical rules and the provisions in the Manual on Government Deficit and Debt (MGDD) (227). The Austrian authorities have confirmed that, under ESA95 statistical rules, ÖBB Infrastruktur AG is not classified to the general government sector.

2.

The MGDD sets out restrictive conditions on the attribution of the government-guaranteed debts of public corporations to government debt

2.

The MGDD sets out restrictive conditions on the attribution of the government-guaranteed debts of public corporations to government debt

 (228)

3.

See the above.

4.

As explained above, the relevant statistical rules have been applied in the case, in line with their application across EU Member States. It may be underlined that Eurostat collects, and uses for the purpose of data verification, reported information on government guarantees, government participations in public corporations, and the debt of public corporations

4.

As explained above, the relevant statistical rules have been applied in the case, in line with their application across EU Member States. It may be underlined that Eurostat collects, and uses for the purpose of data verification, reported information on government guarantees, government participations in public corporations, and the debt of public corporations

 (229)

(Versión española)

Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-000757/13

a la Comisión

Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE)

(25 de enero de 2013)

Asunto: Fracking en la Garrotxa

En la respuesta a la pregunta E-010456/2012 del Sr. Potočniken en nombre de la Comisión (24 de enero de 2013) sobre la concesión de permisos de extracción de gas de esquisto en Osona, se indica que «de conformidad con la Directiva 2011/92/UE, también llamada Directiva de evaluación del impacto ambiental (EIA), los proyectos de perforación a gran profundidad se contemplan en el anexo II, punto 2, letra d), lo que implica que están sujetos a un control por parte de las autoridades competentes a fin de determinar si es necesaria una EIA, con arreglo al artículo 4, apartados 2 a 4, y sobre la base de los criterios que figuran en el anexo III de la Directiva. La decisión de control también debe tener en cuenta los principios de precaución y prevención».

La Generalitat de Catalunya ha autorizado el inminente comienzo de prospecciones para buscar hidrocarburos en la comarca de la Garrotxa, bajo el llamado proyecto Ripoll impulsado por la firma Teredo Oils Limited, que cuenta con los permisos de la Generalitat desde el mes de octubre y que afecta a 51 000 hectáreas de una veintena de pueblos del Ripollès, Osona y la Garrotxa.

Estas inspecciones están impulsadas por el elevado precio del petróleo, por las nuevas técnicas como el fracking y por el conocimiento previo de la existencia de gas y petróleo en la zona. El uso de técnicas como el fracking u otras técnicas de «estimulación» viola tajantemente los principios de precaución y prevención de la Directiva mencionada.

Considerando que las autoridades locales y los vecinos afectados no han recibido la información correspondiente sobre estas prospecciones,

1.

¿Recabará la Comisión información sobre dichos permisos a la empresa Teredo Oils Limited?

2.

¿Considera que la Generalitat de Cataluña (y el Estado español) está violando el principio de cautela, así como los principios de precaución y prevención?

3.

¿Qué medidas tomará la Comisión para frenar, al menos temporalmente, el proyecto con la empresa Teredo Oils Limited hasta que no se hagan los pertinentes estudios de impacto medioambiental?

4.

¿Considera que la Generalitat está violando el derecho a la buena administración, la transparencia y la información a la ciudadanía, conforme a la legislación europea?

Respuesta del Sr. Potočnik en nombre de la Comisión

(6 de marzo de 2013)

La Comisión no dispone de datos suficientes sobre el proyecto para responder a las cuestiones planteadas por Su Señoría, por lo que va a tomar contacto con las autoridades españolas competentes para recabar más información.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000757/13

to the Commission

Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE)

(25 January 2013)

Subject: Fracking in La Garrotxa

In the answer given on 24 January 2013 to Written Question E-010456/2012, regarding the granting of licenses for shale gas extraction in Osona, Mr Potočnik, on behalf of the Commission, states that, ‘as per Directive 2011/92/EU, also known as the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Directive, deep drilling projects are included in Annex II.2.d, which implies that they are subject to a screening by the competent authorities to determine whether an EIA is required, in accordance with Article 4(2)-(4), and on the basis of the criteria listed in Annex III of Directive. The screening decision must also take into account the precautionary and prevention principles’.

The Autonomous Government of Catalonia has authorised imminent commencement of prospecting for hydrocarbons in the La Garrotxa region. This is part of the ‘Ripoll project’, promoted by the company known as Teredo Oils Limited, with permits granted by the Autonomous Government of Catalonia in October, and affecting an area of 51 000 hectares in some 20 municipalities in the Ripollès, Osona and La Garrotxa regions.

These surveys are driven by high oil prices, by new techniques like fracking, and by prior knowledge of the existence of oil and gas in the area. The use of fracking and other ‘stimulation techniques’ clearly violates the abovementioned Directive’s principles of precaution and prevention.

In view of the fact that the local authorities and residents affected have not received appropriate information regarding these prospecting activities,

1.

Will the Commission request information regarding the permits granted to Teredo Oils Limited?

2.

Does it consider that the Autonomous Government of Catalonia (and that of Spain) is violating the principle of caution, and the principles of precaution and prevention?

3.

What measures will the Commission take to halt, at least temporarily, the project involving Teredo Oils Limited, until the appropriate environmental impact studies have been carried out?

4.

Does it consider the Autonomous Government of Catalonia to be violating the right to good administration, transparency and public information, as provided for under European legislation?

Answer given by Mr Potočnik on behalf of the Commission

(6 March 2013)

The Commission does not have sufficient details on the project referred to in order to respond to the questions raised by the Honourable Member. It will contact the competent Spanish authorities for further information.

(Versione italiana)

Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-000758/13

alla Commissione

Crescenzio Rivellini (PPE)

(25 gennaio 2013)

Oggetto: Circolazione dei professionisti e riconoscimento negli Stati membri della professione forense

La libera circolazione delle professioni è da considerarsi uno dei pilastri del diritto comunitario, in quanto è in particolare salvaguardata la facoltà dei professionisti comunitari di esercitare la propria professione in uno Stato membro. L'Italia ha recepito la disciplina comunitaria per quanto attiene l'esercizio della professione di avvocato tramite il decreto legislativo 96 del 2001 in ottemperanza alla direttiva 98/5/CE.

Recentemente il Parlamento italiano ha approvato la riforma forense stabilendo chiaramente, tra le altre cose, la necessità di istituire presso ciascun consiglio dell'ordine una sezione speciale per avvocati stabiliti. Tuttavia professionisti di diversi Paesi (in particolare Spagna, Lussemburgo e Francia) riferiscono che in Italia la situazione è piuttosto eterogenea.

Può la Commissione far sapere:

se ritiene corretta la pratica posta in essere da taluni consigli dell'ordine in Italia che rifiutano la formazione di sezioni speciali per l'iscrizione di professionisti comunitari, impedendo di fatto non solo l'esercizio ma il riconoscimento stesso delle professionalità comunitarie presenti in Italia e quali azioni possono essere intraprese per evitare tale pratica;

se ritiene conforme ai principi e alle norme rilevanti in materia la subordinazione, operata da taluni ordini forensi provinciali, ad un requisito numerico (numero di atti minimo da compiere annualmente durante i tre anni di stabilimento) come criterio pregiudiziale per l'assimilazione al professionista dello Stato membro ospitante, se tale requisito non limita gli scopi della direttiva, eliminando di fatto ogni valutazione circa l'effettività e regolarità della pratica forense introducendo un ulteriore previo giudizio di merito, mai contemplato dal legislatore comunitario e, essendo tale requisito imposto solo da taluni ordini provinciali, se si produce una disparità di trattamento all'interno di uno stesso spazio economico, rischiando di operare una distorsione del mercato?

Risposta di Michel Barnier a nome della Commissione

(11 marzo 2013)

La questione fa riferimento al requisito, stabilito nella recente riforma giuridica italiana (legge n. 247 del 2012), di istituire una serie di elenchi e sezioni speciali che dovranno essere mantenuti dai consigli dell’ordine, compresa una sezione speciale per gli avvocati stabiliti di cui all’articolo 6 del decreto legislativo n. 96 del 2001 (che recepisce la direttiva sullo stabilimento degli avvocati (230)). La direttiva prevede l’obbligo di registrazione presso le autorità competenti dello Stato membro ospitante, che incombe agli avvocati che intendono esercitare la professione in uno Stato membro diverso da quello in cui essi hanno acquisito le loro qualifiche professionali; essa non stabilisce però le disposizioni relative al tipo di registro o se i consigli istituiscono e mantengono un registro speciale a tal fine. In questo contesto spetta agli Stati membri e alle loro autorità competenti decidere come disciplinare la questione, garantendo comunque una reale possibilità di registrazione come richiesto dal diritto dell’UE.

La direttiva prevede l’integrazione nella professione di avvocato nello Stato membro ospitante dopo un periodo di almeno tre anni di attività effettiva e regolare. L’autorità competente dello Stato membro ospitante ha il diritto di esigere tutte le informazioni e documenti utili, in particolare sulle pratiche trattate dal richiedente. Tuttavia sarebbe incompatibile con il diritto dell’UE un obbligo nazionale che fissi un numero minimo di pratiche o di atti trattati, la cui inosservanza comporterebbe un diniego della domanda di assimilazione all’avvocato dello Stato membro. La Commissione ha già preso contatto con le autorità italiane per quanto riguarda tali obblighi imposti da alcuni ordini degli avvocati (ad esempio, l’ordine di Pordenone); a seguito del suo intervento, tali obblighi sono stati eliminati.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000758/13

to the Commission

Crescenzio Rivellini (PPE)

(25 January 2013)

Subject: Free movement of professionals and recognition of the legal profession in the Member States

The free movement of professionals must be regarded as one of the pillars of Community law, particularly because it safeguards the ability of European Union professionals to practise their profession in a Member State. Italy transposed the Community rules concerning the practice of the profession of lawyer with Legislative Decree 96 of 2001, in accordance with Directive 98/5/EC.

The Italian Parliament recently approved the legal reform bill, which clearly established, among other things, the need to establish a special section for in-house lawyers at each Bar Association. However, professionals from various countries (particularly Spain, Luxembourg and France) report that the situation in Italy is rather mixed.

1.Does it regard as proper the behaviour of certain Italian Bar Associations, which are refusing to create special sections for the registration of EU professionals, thus preventing not only the practice of the profession, but also the recognition of professional expertise in Italy? What measures can be taken to prevent this behaviour?

2.Does it believe that the relevant industry principles and standards are being complied with when, as is the case with some provincial Bar Associations, a numerical requirement (minimum number of deeds to be produced annually during the three years of in-house service) is imposed as a prejudicial criterion for the assimilation of a professional by the host Member State? Does this requirement not limit the goals of the directive, by effectively eliminating any assessment of the effectiveness and lawfulness of the legal practice and introducing an additional prior judgment of fitness to practise that was never envisaged by the EU legislator? Since this requirement is being imposed only by certain provincial Bar Associations, does this produce a disparity of treatment within the same economic space, thus risking a distortion of the market?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(11 March 2013)

The question refers to the requirement set forth in the recently adopted Italian legal reform law (Law 247 of 2012) that a number of special lists and sections shall be established and maintained at each bar council, including a special section for established lawyers as referred to at Article 6 of Legislative Decree 96 of 2001 (transposing the Lawyers’ Establishment Directive (231)). While the directive stipulates the requirement for registration with the competent authority in the host Member State incumbent upon lawyers wishing to practice in a Member State other than that in which they obtained their professional qualification, it does not lay down any provisions relating to the type of register, or indeed whether the bars shall establish and maintain any special registers for this purpose. In this context, it is for Member States and their competent authorities to decide how to regulate this matter, subject to ensuring an actual possibility for registration as required by EC law.

The directive provides for integration into the profession of lawyer in the host Member State following a period of at least three years of effective and regular practice. The host Member State’s competent authority is entitled to require any relevant information and documentation, in particular on the matters that the applicant has dealt with. However, a domestic requirement stipulating a minimum number of matters or acts dealt with, failure to comply with which would automatically result in rejection of the application, would be inconsistent with EC law. The Commission has already been in contact with the Italian authorities concerning such requirements applied by some bars (e.g., the Pordenone bar) as a result of which these requirements were removed.

(Deutsche Fassung)

Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-000759/13

an die Kommission

Bernd Lange (S&D)

(25. Januar 2013)

Betrifft: Revision der Verordnung (EU) Nr. 1025/2012 zur europäischen Normung

Am 25.10.2012 haben die Kommission und das Europäische Parlament die Verordnung (EU) Nr. 1025/2012 zur europäischen Normung angenommen. Sie ist zum 1.1.2013 in Kraft getreten.

In Artikel 25 wird eine Überprüfung der Auswirkungen der Verordnung durch die Kommission für den 2.1.2015 vorgeschrieben.

Es mehren sich die Anfragen, dass eine Revision schon zum 1.1.2014 abgeschlossen sein soll. Damit verbunden sind Bedenken über ein zu kleines Zeitfenster, das eine rechtzeitige Umsetzung und Wirkung der aus der Verordnung resultierenden Maßnahmen verhindert.

Kann die Kommission dazu folgende Fragen beantworten:

Wie sieht der Zeitplan für die Revision zur Verordnung aus?

Welchen Mindestzeitraum für die Umsetzung der Verordnung hält die Kommission für möglich?

Welche Beweggründe kann die Kommission haben, um vom ursprünglich angedachten Zeitplan abzuweichen?

Auf welche Weise wird die Kommission die Interessenträger bei ihrer Entscheidung angemessen beteiligen?

Antwort von Herrn Tajani im Namen der Kommission

(21. März 2013)

1.

Gemäß Artikel 25 der Verordnung (EU) Nr. 1025/2012 bewertet die Kommission die Auswirkungen des in Artikel 10 vorgesehenen Verfahrens auf den Zeitbedarf für die Erteilung von Normungsaufträgen. Die Kommission legt die Ergebnisse der Bewertung in einem Bericht an das Europäische Parlament und den Rat vor. Die Kommission wird den Bericht, wie in Artikel 25 der Verordnung vorgesehen, spätestens bis zum 2. Januar 2015 vorgelegen.

Des Weiteren wird die Kommission, wie im Anhang des Arbeitsprogramms der Kommission für 2013 (232) angekündigt, im Jahr 2013 eine unabhängige Überprüfung durchführen, in der die Fortschritte bei der Verwirklichung der strategischen Ziele ermittelt und die Ergebnisse der gegenwärtigen Steuerung des europäischen Normungssystems bewertet werden sollen.

2.

Artikel 30 der Verordnung (EU) Nr. 1025/2012 bezieht sich auf das Inkrafttreten der Verordnung. Diese Verordnung trat am 4. Dezember 2012 in Kraft und gilt seit dem 1. Januar 2013.

3.

Die Kommission beabsichtigt nicht, von dem in Artikel 25 der Verordnung (EU) Nr. 1025/2012 festgelegten Zeitplan abzuweichen.

4.

In der Verordnung (EU) Nr. 1025/2012 ist eine gewisse Reihe an Mechanismen vorgesehen, die sicherstellen sollen, dass bei den Normungsverfahren die Interessenträger angemessen vertreten sind. Darin eingeschlossen sind das Notifizierungssystem für alle Interessenträger gemäß Artikel 12, die Zusammenarbeit der europäischen Normungsorganisationen, die von der Union finanziert werden, mit dem gemäß Artikel 22 gegründeten Ausschuss und die Verpflichtung europäischer Normungsorganisationen gemäß Artikel 5, eine angemessene Vertretung aller einschlägigen Interessenträger und deren wirkungsvolle Beteiligung an ihren Normungstätigkeiten zu fördern und zu erleichtern. Die Kommission wird gewährleisten, dass solche Mechanismen in Übereinstimmung mit der Verordnung wirksam angewendet werden.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000759/13

to the Commission

Bernd Lange (S&D)

(25 January 2013)

Subject: Review of Regulation (EU) No 1025/2012 on European standardisation

On 25 November 2012 the Commission and the European Parliament adopted Regulation (EU) No 1025/2012 on European standardisation, which came into force on 1 January 2013.

Article 25 stipulates that the Commission is to evaluate the impact of the regulation by 2 January 2015.

There have been an increasing number of calls for the review to be completed by 1 January 2014 instead, due to concerns that the timeframe could be too short to allow the proper implementation and functioning of the measures resulting from the regulation.

Can the Commission answer the following:

What is the current timetable for reviewing the regulation?

What does the Commission believe is the minimum period within which the regulation could be implemented?

On what grounds would the Commission deviate from the original timetable?

How will the Commission ensure that stakeholders play an appropriate role in the decision-making process?

Answer given by Mr Tajani on behalf of the Commission

(21 March 2013)

1.

Article 25 of Regulation (EU) No 1025/2012 stipulates that the Commission is to evaluate the impact of the regulation on the timeframe for issuing standardisation requests pursuant to Article 10 of the regulation and to present its conclusions in a report to the European Parliament and to the Council. The Commission will present the report by 2 January 2015 at the latest, as required by Article 25 of the regulation.

In addition, as foreseen in the annex to the Commission's Work Programme 2013 (233) an independent review will be launched by the Commission in 2013 to assess progress against strategic objectives and evaluate the performance of the current governance in the European standardisation system.

2.

Article 30 of Regulation (EU)

No 1025/2012 refers to the entry into force of the regulation. This regulation entered into force on 4 December 2012 and is applicable from 1 January 2013.

3.

The Commission does not intend to deviate from the timetable set out in Article 25 of Regulation (EU)

No 1025/2012.

4.

Regulation (EU)

No 1025/2012 provides for a number of mechanisms to ensure an appropriate representation of stakeholders in standardisation processes. These include the notification system for all stakeholders pursuant to Article 12, the cooperation of the European stakeholder organisations receiving Union financing with the Committee set up pursuant to Article 22 and the obligation for European standardisation organisations to encourage and facilitate an appropriate representation and effective participation of all relevant stakeholders in their standardisation activities pursuant to Article 5. The Commission will ensure the effective application of such mechanisms in accordance with the regulation.

(Tekstas lietuvių kalba)

Klausimas, į kurį atsakoma raštu, Nr. E-000760/13

Tarybai

Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D)

(2013 m. sausio 25 d.)

Tema: Derybų dėl komandiruojamų darbuotojų direktyvos eiga

Kada ES Tarybai pirmininkaujanti Airija planuoja pradėti trišalius dialogus su Europos Parlamentu dėl pasiūlymo dėl Tarybos direktyvos 96/71/EB dėl darbuotojų komandiravimo paslaugų teikimo sistemoje vykdymo užtikrinimo?

Dar Airijos pirmininkavimo laikotarpiu Europos Parlamentas tikisi balsuoti dėl šio dokumento savo plenarinėje sesijoje.

Atsakymas

(2013 m. kovo 18 d.)

Danijos ir Kipro pirmininkavimo laikotarpiais Taryba padarė didelę pažangą ir pasiekė rezultatų nagrinėdama įvairius klausimus, susijusius su pasiūlymu dėl Direktyvos 96/71/EB dėl darbuotojų komandiravimo paslaugų teikimo sistemoje vykdymo užtikrinimo  (234); pavyzdžiui, aiškesnė „komandiravimo“ sąvokos apibrėžtis pasitelkiant komandiravimo atvejų tikrumo vertinimo kriterijus, geresnis darbuotojų ir bendrovių informavimas apie teises bei pareigas ir sustiprintas nacionalinių valdžios institucijų bendradarbiavimas, taip pat tarpvalstybinio administracinių baudų bei sankcijų, skirtų už reikalavimų nesilaikymą, vykdymo užtikrinimas įdiegus savitarpio pagalbos ir pripažinimo sistemą.

Pirmininkaujanti Airija yra visapusiškai įsipareigojusi remtis šiais rezultatais ir siekti sukurti pagrindą galimybei 2013 m. birželio mėn. Tarybos posėdyje susitarti dėl bendro požiūrio.

Tuo pačiu Taryba tinkamai apsvarstys Europos Parlamento poziciją, kuri turi būti priimta per pirmąjį svarstymą, kad kuo labiau būtų sumažinta šių dviejų institucijų nuomonių skirtumų.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000760/13

to the Council

Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D)

(25 January 2013)

Subject: Negotiations on the progress of the Posting of Workers Directive

When does the Irish Presidency of the Council of the EU plan to begin a trialogue with the European Parliament on the proposal on the enforcement of Directive 96/71/EC concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services?

The European Parliament expects to vote on this document in plenary before the end of the Irish Presidency.

Reply

(18 March 2013)

Under the Danish and Cyprus Presidencies, the Council has moved forward substantially and achieved results on various issues relating to the proposal for a directive on the enforcement of Directive 96/71/EC concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services (235); for example, a clearer definition of the notion of ‘posting’ through criteria for assessing the genuineness of posting cases, better information of workers and companies concerning their rights and obligations and enhanced cooperation between national authorities, as well as cross-border enforcement of administrative fines and penalties imposed for non-compliance through the introduction of a system of mutual assistance and recognition.

The Irish Presidency is fully committed to building on these results with a view to paving the way for a general approach to be reached by the Council in June 2013.

At the same time, the Council will give due consideration to the European Parliament's position to be adopted at first reading with a view to possibly reducing the scope for divergence between the two institutions.

(Tekstas lietuvių kalba)

Klausimas, į kurį atsakoma raštu, Nr. E-000761/13

Tarybai

Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D)

(2013 m. sausio 25 d.)

Tema: Pensijų perkėlimo direktyva

Kokią derybų eigą planuoja šį pusmetį ES Tarybai pirmininkaujanti Airija ir kokių tikisi rezultatų Pensijų perkėlimo direktyvos priėmimo klausimu. Jau keletą metų šios direktyvos projektas Taryboje užstrigęs dėl kai kurių valstybių narių nepritarimo.

Atsakymas

(2013 m. balandžio 15 d.)

Pirmininkaujanti Airija yra pasiryžusi tęsti darbą nagrinėjant iš dalies pakeistą pasiūlymą dėl Europos Parlamento ir Tarybos direktyvos dėl teisių į papildomą pensiją perkėlimo gerinimo darbuotojų judumo didinimo būtiniausių reikalavimų gerinant teisių į papildomą pensiją įgijimą ir išsaugojimą  (236).

Pirmasis už šį dokumentą atsakingos darbo grupės posėdis jau įvyko 2013 m. sausio 30 d., vėliau suplanuota surengti kitus posėdžius.

Tačiau Taryba negali numatyti vykstančių diskusijų rezultatų ar jų trukmės.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000761/13

to the Council

Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D)

(25 January 2013)

Subject: Pensions portability directive

What progress does Ireland, which holds the Council Presidency in the first half of 2013, plan to make in negotiations and what results does it expect as regards the adoption of a pensions portability directive? For several years a draft of this directive has been stuck in Council because of the objections of some Member States.

Reply

(15 April 2013)

The Irish Presidency is determined to continue the work on progressing the Amended proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on minimum requirements for enhancing worker mobility by improving the acquisition and preservation of supplementary pension rights (237).

A first meeting of the Working Party, which is responsible for this file, already took place on 30 January 2013, and further meetings will follow in due course.

However, the Council is not in a position to anticipate the outcome or the duration of the ongoing negotiations.

(Tekstas lietuvių kalba)

Klausimas, į kurį atsakoma raštu, Nr. E-000762/13

Tarybai

Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D)

(2013 m. sausio 25 d.)

Tema: Darbo laiko direktyvos ateitis

Iki šiol socialiniai partneriai nesusitarė dėl Darbo laiko direktyvos. Ar šį pusmetį ES Tarybai pirmininkaujanti Airija kartu su Komisija imsis kokių nors veiksmų, kad būtų atnaujintos derybos dėl šios direktyvos?

Atsakymas

(2013 m. kovo 18 d.)

Kaip gerbiamoji Parlamento narė žino, Komisija 2010 m. konsultavosi su Europos socialiniais partneriais dėl galimų Darbo laiko direktyvos pakeitimų  (238). SESV 154 straipsnyje nustatyta, kad Komisija ES lygmeniu konsultuojasi su administracija ir darbuotojais dėl galimos Sąjungos veikimo linkmės socialinės politikos srityje. Tai taikoma ir teikiant pasiūlymus dėl esamo socialinės srities teisės akto pakeitimų. Pagal 155 straipsnio 1 dalį administracijos ir darbuotojų dialogas Sąjungos lygmeniu gali baigtis sutartiniais santykiais, įskaitant susitarimus.

2011 m. lapkričio 14 d. ES socialiniai partneriai informavo Komisiją, kad jie kartu nusprendė pradėti derybas dėl Darbo laiko direktyvos peržiūros. Praėjus iš pradžių suteikto devynių mėnesių laikotarpio pratęsimui, derybos turėjo baigtis 2012 m. gruodžio 31 d.

2012 m. gruodžio 14 d. trys darbdavių organizacijos – BUSINESSEUROPE, Europos viešąsias paslaugas teikiančių darbdavių ir įmonių centras (CEEP) ir Europos amatų, mažų ir vidutinių įmonių asociacija (UEAPME) – padarė pareiškimą, kuriame jos pareiškė apgailestavimą, kad Europos profesinių sąjungų konfederacija (ETUC) nesugeba tęsti derybų.

Atsižvelgdama į Europos socialinių partnerių derybų rezultatus, Taryba laukia, kad Komisija pateiktų padėties įvertinimą ir pasiūlymų dėl tolesnių veiksmų.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000762/13

to the Council

Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D)

(25 January 2013)

Subject: Future of the Working Time Directive

Social partners have yet to agree on the Working Time Directive. Will Ireland, which holds the Council Presidency in the first half of 2013, together with the Commission, take any action to renew negotiations on this directive?

Reply

(18 March 2013)

As the Honourable Member is aware, the Commission consulted the European social partners during 2010 about possible changes to the Working Time Directive (239). It is laid down in Article 154 TFEU that the Commission shall consult management and labour at EU level on the possible direction of Union action in the social policy field. This includes proposing changes to existing social legislation. Under Article 155(1), the dialogue between management and labour at Union level may lead to contractual relations, including agreements.

On 14 November 2011, the EU social partners informed the Commission that they had jointly decided to launch negotiations on reviewing the Working Time Directive. Following an extension of the period of nine months originally provided, the negotiations were to end on 31 December 2012.

On 14 December 2012, the three employers' organisations BUSINESSEUROPE, the European Centre of Employers and Enterprises providing Public Services (CEEP) and the European Association of Craft, Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (UEAPME) made a statement in which they regretted that the European Trade Unions Confederation (ETUC) was not able to continue negotiations.

Following the outcome of the European social partners' negotiations, the Council looks forward to the Commission's assessment of the situation and its suggestions on action to be taken.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000763/13

to the Commission

Fiona Hall (ALDE)

(25 January 2013)

Subject: Children in Senegal subjected to begging and abuse

On 15 June 2010, the Commission answered a parliamentary question (E-2988/10) submitted by Lorenzo Fontana MEP concerning the living conditions in Senegal’s Koranic schools (daaras).

The Commission stated that it was aware of the report produced by Human Rights Watch on children in Senegal being subjected to forced begging and abuse by their Koranic schools, and that this issue was being regularly monitored by the EU mission in Senegal as part of its activities in the area of human rights. In addition, the Commission stated that it was willing to use the principle of political dialogue under Article 8 of the Cotonou Agreement to draw the attention of the authorities to the EU’s concerns in this area, to encourage them to take measures to ensure that the activity of daaras does not lead to abuses of children’s rights and to inform them of the EU’s readiness to support their efforts in this area.

1.

Will the Commission therefore provide an update on its efforts with respect to the children in Senegal that are forced to beg and are subject to abuse by Koranic schools, with respect to the measures and means described in its previous answer in June 2010?

2.

In addition, does the Commission have any evidence of progress made regarding this issue?

Answer given by High Representative/Vice-President Ashton on behalf of the Commission

(21 March 2013)

The EU follows closely the situation of children in Koranic schools in Senegal, in some of which children face abuses such as child labour, forced begging, exploitation and sexual abuse. Some of the children are trafficked into Senegal from other countries in West Africa. Malnutrition, precarious living conditions and its consequences on children's health and inaccessibility to formal education are deplorable.

Children's rights have been regularly discussed in the political dialogue under Article 8 of the Cotonou Agreement that the EU Delegation and the Ambassadors of Member States hold with Senegalese authorities. The exploitation of children and forced begging were discussed in July 2012 in the first meeting with Senegal's then newly appointed Government, who intends to take measures to curb child abuses and to improve child protection. The EU encouraged the authorities to continue efforts to implement the Convention on the Rights of the Child and relevant national legislation as well as recommendations formulated at Senegal's last Universal Periodical Review in 2009 concerning child protection and right to education.

The rights of the child have been identified as one of the priorities for EU action in the area of human rights in Senegal. The EU and several of its Member States implement concrete projects in Senegal aiming at improving child protection and raising awareness among journalists, local authorities, civil society organisations and community leaders on the phenomena of child begging and trafficking. Support to the civil society organisations in improving their advocacy capacities on children's rights is also provided.

(Versión española)

Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-000764/13

a la Comisión (Vicepresidenta/Alta Representante)

Raimon Obiols (S&D)

(25 de enero de 2013)

Asunto: VP/HR — Sistema sanitario de Afganistán

Afganistán se enfrenta a enormes necesidades de reconstrucción después de años de guerras y conflictos civiles. Entre sus máximas prioridades se encuentra el desarrollo de un sistema sanitario nacional que ha quedado totalmente debilitado por la inestabilidad del país y que, a día de hoy, no puede responder a las necesidades de la ciudadanía.

Cabe recordar que Afganistán cuenta con una de las tasas de mortalidad infantil y mortalidad materna más elevadas del mundo. La falta de medios médicos y de infraestructuras contribuye a aumentar estas tasas, así como otros problemas derivados de la pobreza extrema y la malnutrición.

Ante esta delicada situación hay que tener presente que los hospitales en el territorio afgano no se encuentran presentes de manera homogénea. Pese a que cada provincia cuenta con un hospital y un ambulatorio, las estadísticas muestran que existen doce camas por cada 10 000 habitantes en la provincia de Kabul, a diferencia de las dos camas de promedio por cada 10 000 habitantes existentes en el resto de provincias.

1.

Ante esta realidad, ¿qué esfuerzos realiza el SEAE para contribuir a la reconstrucción del sistema sanitario afgano?

2.

¿Qué planificación existe para la construcción y reconstrucción de hospitales y ambulatorios en el país?

3.

¿Se están tomando medidas para mejorar la preparación del personal médico y sanitario afgano?

Respuesta del Sr. Piebalgs en nombre de la Comisión

(15 de marzo de 2013)

La Comisión remite a Su Señoría a la respuesta a la pregunta escrita E-006058/2012 (240), que aborda un problema similar.

Desde 2001, la UE ha venido apoyando en una serie de provincias la prestación de servicios básicos de asistencia sanitaria (341 millones EUR): Conjunto Básico de Servicios Sanitarios [Basic Package of Health Services (BPHS)] y Conjunto Básico de Servicios Hospitalarios [Essential Package of Hospital Services (BPHS)]. El BPHS y el EPHS han recibido un amplio reconocimiento por los progresos en la situación sanitaria observados desde 2003. La mejora de la cobertura, la accesibilidad, la utilización, la calidad de los servicios y la supervisión siguen siendo fundamentales para mejorar la situación sanitaria de los afganos.

La UE apoya también la estrategia 2011-2015 del Ministerio de Salud Pública (MSP) y el Programa de Prioridad Nacional «Salud para Todos los Afganos» mediante el programa «Mejorar el Sistema de Salud en Situaciones de Transición» [System Enhancement for Health Action in Transition (SEHAT)], adoptado en 2012. La estrategia del MSP incluye intervenciones prioritarias para aumentar el personal de salud comunitaria y para capacitar y poner a trabajar a más comadronas y enfermeras. Una estrecha colaboración entre el Ministerio de Salud Pública y el Ministerio de Enseñanza Superior (MES) garantizará un mayor número de médicos y personal sanitario afganos cualificados.

La construcción y reconstrucción de las instalaciones sanitarias es parte del apoyo que presta la UE al BPHS y al EPHS, especialmente en zonas remotas donde no existe ninguna otra fuente de financiación (por ejemplo, en Ghor, Laghman y Daikundai).

Para más información, la Comisión remite a Su Señoría al documento State of Play on EU Afghanistan Cooperation  (241).

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000764/13

to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)

Raimon Obiols (S&D)

(25 January 2013)

Subject: VP/HR — Health system in Afghanistan

Afghanistan is facing major reconstruction needs after years of wars and civil conflicts. Among its top priorities is development of the national health system, which has been wholly weakened by the country’s instability and cannot meet the needs of its citizens today.

It should be remembered that Afghanistan has one of the highest infant mortality and maternal mortality rates in the world. The lack of medical facilities and infrastructure serves to increase these rates, as well as other problems related to extreme poverty and malnutrition.

Given this fragile situation, it is important to bear in mind that hospitals inside Afghan territory are not uniformly present. Although each province has a hospital and a clinic, statistics show that there are 12 beds per 10 000 inhabitants in the province of Kabul, as opposed to the average of two beds per 10 000 inhabitants in the other provinces.

1.

Given this situation, what efforts is the European External Action Service (EEAS) making to help rebuild the Afghan health system?

2.

What planning is there for the construction and reconstruction of hospitals and clinics in the country?

3.

Are measures being taken to improve the training of Afghan medical and health workers?

Answer given by Mr Piebalgs on behalf of the Commission

(15 March 2013)

The Commission refers the Honourable Member to the answer to Written Question E‐006058/2012 (242) which deals with a similar issue.

Since 2001, the EU has supported the provision of basic healthcare services (EUR 341 million) — ‘Basic Package of Health Services’ (BPHS) and the ‘Essential Package of Hospital Services’ (EPHS) — in a number of provinces. BPHS and EPHS are widely credited for the improvements in health status observed since 2003. Improving coverage, accessibility, utilisation, quality of services and monitoring remain critical to further improving the health status of Afghans.

The EU also supports the Ministry of Public Health’s (MoPH) strategy 2011-2015 and the National Priority Programme ‘Health for All Afghans’ through the programme ‘System Enhancement for Health in Transition’ (SEHAT), adopted in 2012. MoPH’s strategy includes priority interventions to increase the number of community health workers and train and deploy increased numbers of midwives and female nurses. Closer collaboration between MoPH and the Ministry of Higher Education (MoHE) will ensure a greater number of trained Afghan medical and health workers.

Construction and reconstruction of Health Facilities is part of the EU’s support to the BPHS and EPHS, particularly in remote areas, where no other sources of funding are available (e.g. in Ghor, Laghman and Daikundai).

For additional information, the Commission would refer the Honourable Member to the State of Play on EU Afghanistan Cooperation (243).

(Deutsche Fassung)

Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-000765/13

an die Kommission

Michael Cramer (Verts/ALE)

(25. Januar 2013)

Betrifft: Personal der Europäischen Eisenbahnagentur (ERA)

Die Europäische Eisenbahnagentur (ERA) spielt bei der Schaffung des Einheitlichen Europäischen Eisenbahnraums eine zentrale Rolle und übernimmt in diesem Zusammenhang eine wachsende Zahl von Verantwortlichkeiten. Auch für das 4. Eisenbahnpaket wurde die Zuweisung zusätzlicher Zuständigkeiten angekündigt.

Zugleich sieht sich die Agentur mit Schwierigkeiten bei der Personalpolitik konfrontiert, da sie die Arbeitsverträge erfahrener Experten aufgrund bestehenden Rechts, namentlich der Verordnung 1335/2008, nicht verlängern kann. Gerade in einer Phase der Reifung und Konsolidierung ist die ERA mit einem hohen Abfluss an strategischem Know-How konfrontiert, der die Implementierung der erarbeiteten Grundlagen enorm erschwert. Gleichzeitig erschweren die ständig steigenden Effizienzanforderungen den Wissenstransfer.

Andere EU-Agenturen, wie die Europäische Agentur für Flugsicherheit (EASA), verfügen über großzügigere Regeln bei der Personalpolitik.

Kann die Kommission dazu folgende Fragen beantworten:

Welche Maßnahmen hält sie für erforderlich, um der Europäischen Eisenbahnagentur kurzfristig eine Reaktion auf kritische Situationen bei der Personalausstattung zu ermöglichen?

Welche mittel‐ und langfristigen Lösungen sieht sie für das oben genannte Problem?

Antwort von Herrn Kallas im Namen der Kommission

(6. März 2013)

Der Kommission ist bewusst, dass die Europäische Eisenbahnagentur (ERA) in den kommenden Jahren voraussichtlich viele Mitarbeiterinnen und Mitarbeiter ersetzen muss und dass es für die kontinuierliche Arbeit und das Wissensmanagement der Agentur entscheidend ist, hochqualifiziertes Personal zu gewinnen und zu halten. Zu den Fragen des Herrn Abgeordneten gibt sie daher folgende Stellungnahme ab:

Die Kommission hält die von der Leitung der Agentur bei der letzten Sitzung des Verwaltungsrats der ERA (am 27. November 2012) vorgeschlagenen Maßnahmen für angemessen. Dazu gehören ein früher Beginn der Auswahlverfahren, eine verstärkte Unterstützung im Bereich Personalmanagement (unter anderem in Bezug auf die Übertragung von Akten, die Schulung von Nachfolgerinnen und Nachfolgern, Leitlinien sowie ein Muster für eine Übergabeakte) sowie ein verstärktes Wissensmanagement durch Qualitätsbeauftragte und Referatsleiter/innen. Das Thema soll bei den Sitzungen des Verwaltungsrats der ERA regelmäßig erörtert werden, und die Kommission wird die Lage systematisch überwachen.

Die von der Kommission im Rahmen des 4. Eisenbahnpakets vorgeschlagene neue Agenturverordnung (244) (die vom Kollegium am 30. Januar 2013 angenommen wurde) enthält in Artikel 61 überarbeite Bestimmungen hinsichtlich des Personals der Agentur, wonach die in der derzeitigen Grundverordnung vorgesehenen Beschränkungen entfallen sollen. Die Kommission hält diesen flexibleren Ansatz für eine geeignete mittel‐ und langfristige Lösung.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000765/13

to the Commission

Michael Cramer (Verts/ALE)

(25 January 2013)

Subject: Staff of the European Railway Agency (ERA)

The European Railway Agency (ERA) plays a key role in establishing a single European railway area, and is taking on an ever greater number of responsibilities in this connection. It has been announced that it will also be given additional responsibilities under the Fourth Railway Package.

At the same time, however, the Agency is facing problems linked to its personnel policy, since it is unable to extend the employment contracts of experienced experts on the basis of existing legislation, in particular Regulation (EC) No 1335/2008. This means that the ERA is experiencing significant losses of strategic know-how during this development and consolidation phase, making it much more difficult for the foundations which have been established to be implemented. The constant demands for increased efficiency are also making it difficult to transfer knowledge.

The personnel policies of other EU agencies, such as the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), are subject to more generous rules.

Can the Commission answer the following:

What steps does it believe need to be taken in order to allow the European Railway Agency to respond promptly to critical staffing problems?

What does it propose in terms of mid-term and long-term solutions to the abovementioned problem?

Answer given by Mr Kallas on behalf of the Commission

(6 March 2013)

The Commission is aware of the expected high replacement rate of ERA staff in the coming years, and that recruiting and retaining high-quality personnel is crucial for business continuity and knowledge management of the Agency. In light of the above, the answers to the questions of the Honourable Member are the following:

Commission considers the mitigating measures presented by the management of the Agency at the last Administrative Board meeting of ERA (27 November 2012) as appropriate to deal w